Re: NULL

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

On 01/13/2013 11:47:32 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > So I think you're saying is that the behavior I'm depending on  
> changed?
> 
> well,
> 
> (int)(void*)0 is not an "integer constant expression" and it
> is not a "null pointer constant",

C99 6.3.2.3: An integer constant expression with the value 0, or such  
an expression cast to type void *, is called a null pointer constant.

7.17 #3: The macros are NULL which expands to an implementation-defined  
null pointer constant;

So it uses "constant" in the name but either it's not a constant or  
typecasting it twice makes it stop being a constant.

> it is not an "arithmetic
> constant expression" nor an "address constant", but an
> implementation is allowed to accept it as a "constant expression"
> anyway
> (as far as i can see it is not required to though)

Actually it turned out the problem was I accidentally checked in some  
debug code, which set -O0 (which apparently disables --gc-sections even  
when explicitly specified).

So it's still working fine. Whether or not it should depends on whether  
or not "constant" means it's a constant.

> !(void*)0 and (void*)0 || (void*)0 are similar
> 
> in initializers they may be accepted, but the standard
> does not require them to be

At one point, I had to dig through all this stuff:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2007-09/msg00128.html

Alas, that was about 5 years ago and I no longer remember the details.

> gcc used to be less strict integer constant expressions,
> but recently it follows the standard more closely
> 
> > Sigh. Yup. When I build toybox with just "true", gcc 4.2.1 (last gpl
> > release) drops out parse_optflag() but the ubuntu host toolchain no
> > longer does.
> 
> i think gcc should be able to do the optimization

It can, it was -O0. Pilot error. :)

Rob