From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20805 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1999 08:44:26 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Mar 1999 08:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 9401 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 1999 08:44:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 5633 Received: (qmail 9389 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1999 08:44:14 -0000 Sender: rz2a022@uni-hamburg.de Message-ID: <36DE478C.2F17DA58@uni-hamburg.de> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 09:42:52 +0100 From: Bernd Eggink Organization: RRZ Uni Hamburg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; AIX 4.2) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrej Borsenkow CC: Sven Wischnowsky , zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: 0 vs. NULL (RE: Worrisome warnings after recent patches) References: <000901be6619$6f8a6930$21c9ca95@mowp.siemens.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrej Borsenkow wrote: > > > + Cline to, tn = NULL; > > What is the point of using NULL to initialize null pointer. The only > portable and official way is to use `0'(zero), that is garanteed to be > converted to whatever representation null pointer has on a given system. No, this applies to C++ only, not to C. In C you should use the NULL macro or (void*)0. Bernd -- Bernd Eggink Regionales Rechenzentrum der Uni Hamburg eggink@rrz.uni-hamburg.de http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/eggink/BEggink.html