the nil pointer is not zero (was TC 2.0 oddity - me or ?)

[John Stanley]

chris at mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:

> In article <s64421.658489804 at zeus> s64421 at zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes:
> >Zero is actually a perfectly legitimate address, but it got snaffued
> >by C to stand for a NULL pointer.
> 
> This is true in many *implementations*, but it is not part of C itself.
> 
> On computers on which address location zero has `interesting' contents
> (e.g., a boot reset vector, or simply regular memory), implementations
> are faced with two choices:  either the nil pointer pointer to some

   And some operating systems will not map address 0 into the process
space, which makes 0 the NULL pointer, and dereferencing it immediately
painful. I remember reading that those systems which do not map 0
addresses are a direct result of protecting against the most common
invalid pointer reference.





<> "Aneth!  That's a charming place!" "You've been to Aneth?" 
<> "Yes, but not yet." -- The Doctor and Seth, "The Horns of Nimon".
><
<> "Sanity check!" "Sorry, we can't accept it, it's from out of state." - me