From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  4 Apr 2014 01:48:34 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <184dcad1c1fd8efc07e670097571cf82@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140404054024.GT3145@iota.offblast.org>
References: <6e85a8537b36b3a176fd2b8527068842@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<20140404054024.GT3145@iota.offblast.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] nil, and the danger of zero
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d69af576-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> (void *)0 is certainly not the same as 0.
> depending on architecture and compiler, of course.

it's not the compiler, it's the type model, which if anything
is tied to the hardware.  you just won't have this sort of
problem on a 32-bit machine.  which is why this code has
been just like that in plan 9 for 15 or more years.

- erik