Re: Bash-4.3 Official Patch 30

[Ángel González]

Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 10/6/14, 6:16 PM, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> 
> >>> Do you mean return ""; ?
> >>
> >> Yes, good catch.  It doesn't make a difference: clang and gcc both accept
> >> it as written and it behaves as desired.  However, I'll change it for the
> >> next version.
> > 
> > Changing it to return 0 instead of '\0' would probably be more clear.
> > No need to return a pointer to a static empty string.
> 
> It depends on how you want the function to work.  It is nice to
> differentiate between the cases where there is no shell input line
> at all, where the index is just wrong, and the actual current input
> pointer.  A "" indicates the second case better than a 0, though it's
> not perfect.
> 
> Chet


Note it **is** returning NULL, not "" as it seemed implied by earlier
messages. Only verified gcc (4.9.1) behavior, but that's also what I
expected from the C code:  '\0' (char) promoted to 0 (int), then to 
NULL (char*)


Regards


> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> char *
> foo()
> {
>       return '\0';
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>       printf("The value is: %p\n", foo());
>       return 0;
> }

Output:
> (nil)