[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH][RESEND] do not redefine userspace's NULL #define
From:       Peter Seebach <peter.seebach () windriver ! com>
Date:       2012-04-13 22:01:51
Message-ID: 20120413170151.20c7230e () wrlaptop
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:39:20 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> And quite frankly, kernel-external definitions of NULL have
> traditionally been pure sh*t (ie plain "0" without the cast to a
> pointer), so I'm not entirely convinced about this patch.

I was going to dispute this, and point out that I'm pretty sure
the C++ standard specifically requires the plain-integer 0/0L
definition.  Then I realized this did not actually contradict
your description.

Maybe the thing to do would be to ensure that NULL goes to __null,
then define that to be ((void *) 0) if the compiler doesn't provide
it?  The magic behavior of __null seems like it'd be preferable
where it is available.

-s
-- 
Listen, get this.  Nobody with a good compiler needs to be justified.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]