the nil pointer is not zero (was TC 2.0 oddity - me or ?)
Walter Bright
bright at nazgul.UUCP
Sat Nov 17 08:45:02 AEST 1990
In article <27636 at mimsy.umd.edu> chris at mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
/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
/type(s) must not be the bit pattern that means `address location
/zero'---typically, this means that, e.g., something like 0x3fc0ee7b
/must be used as the bit pattern for nil pointers---or else the
/implementation must make sure no object ever happens to be assigned
/address 0.
Or a third method, commonly used on the PC: 0 is both the NULL pointer
*and* is a valid address. If you wish to poke into the interrupt vector
table, nothing stops you from doing this (and it works fine):
long far *p = 0;
*p = whatever;
I'm also told that this solution is used on that Prime computer which seems
to be the only one where NULL!=0. All that is necessary is to adjust malloc
and the layout of the code and data so that it never sits on 0.
I think the ANSI C committee missed the boat on this. Thousands of hours
of wasted time, confusion, and net debate would have been eliminated if
NULL had been fixed at all bits 0.
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list