[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: definition of NULL

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: definition of NULL
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:31:19 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9

Eric Blake wrote:
> Should we make gnulib provide replacement headers for systems that have such 
> a 
> poorly defined NULL?  Or is NULL even poorly defined in practice on any of 
> gnulib's current set of reasonable porting targets?

I believe that this problem with NULL existed up until 1995. Since then, most
poorly maintained platforms have been 32-bit platforms - no problem. The
64-bit platforms that have been created since then got it right. The only
problem is with old library include files that were not updated. If, for
example, a program does

  #include "gl.h" /* opengl */
  #include <stdlib.h>

then it may get the 32-bit NULL definition from gl.h although the stdlib.h
file would provide a 64-bit NULL if it was to be included first.

> Any objections to this patch?

Looks fine.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]