Re: Style Question

[Kyle Moffett]

On Mar 11, 2007, at 21:32:00, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Mar 11 2007 21:27, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 2007, at 19:16:59, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > On Mar 11 2007 18:01, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > > > On the other hand when __cplusplus is defined they define it to the
> > > > "__null" builtin, which GCC uses to give type conversion errors for
> > > > "int foo = NULL" but not "char *foo = NULL".
>
> > > I think that the primary reason they use __null is so that you can
> > > actually do[...]
> >
> > Isn't that what I said? :-D
>
> Ya. Though I was picking at
>
> > "__null" builtin, which GCC uses to give type conversion errors  
> > for "int foo = NULL"
>
> since C's (void *)0 would also barf when being assigned to int.  So  
> it's not a genuine __null feature ;-)

You chopped my sentence in half! :-D  What I *really* said was:
> ...give type conversion errors for 'int foo = NULL' but not 'char  
> *foo = NULL'.

The pseudo-standard "#define NULL (0)" that the C++ standards ask for  
does *NOT* give an error for "int foo = NULL;", and in C++ the C- 
standard "#define NULL ((void *)0)" *does* give an error for "char  
*foo = NULL;"  Ergo I think I was correct when I said "GCC uses  
[__null] to give type conversion errors for <the-first> but not <the- 
second>"

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/