The confusion (I dare not call it a flame war) is arising out of the difference between an object with all bits zero and a 0 constant (or equivalently 2*0 or 3-3 or what not). 0 in pointer context is always a null pointer, but it may or may not be all-bits-zero. 0 in integer context is, on any sane machine, all-bits-zero (on 1's-complement machines it may also be all-bits-one). Personally, when I was programming in C I defined a macro #define NULLPTR(t) ((t)0), so that I would write NULLPTR(char *) or NULLPTR(int *) or whatever the Right Thing was. On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 6:16 PM Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 4:59 PM Steve Nickolas wrote: > >> I was under the impression that there was explicitly no requirement that >> a >> null pointer be 0, >> > Indeed, section 7.19 states it is *implementation-defined*. See my > previous message. >