null pointers [joke?] (was: commom malloc/free practice ...)
bdm659 at csc.anu.oz
bdm659 at csc.anu.oz
Sat Oct 28 03:51:49 AEST 1989
In article <8952 at goofy.megatest.UUCP>, djones at megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
>
> 1. The sections concerning pointers are poorly written.
> It will not surprise me at all if a literal reading of them leaves some
> expected behavior unspecified.
>
> 2. It doesn't matter.
Section 3.2.2.3 (on the result of casting 0 to a pointer type):
"Such a pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed not to
point to any object or function."
Section 3.3.9 (on pointer equality):
"If two pointers to object or incomplete types compare equal,
they point to the same object."
>From these two rules, it logically follows that (int*)0 != (int*)0 .
Choose between :-) and :-( yourself.
==========================
Brendan McKay. bdm at anucsd.oz or bdm at anucsd.oz.au (via uunet.uu.net)
The address in the header may be scrambled.
More information about the Comp.std.c
mailing list