gcc and NULL function pointers.

[Peter da Silva]

In article <1991Jun19.182420.12673 at athena.mit.edu> scs at adam.mit.edu writes:
> I share Lars's disgust.

Why?

The "best" definition for "NULL" is entirely compiler/hardware dependent.
*Most* of the time 0 is unequivocally correct. There are, however, computers
and compilers for which ((void *)0) is more useful. No more "correct", from
a standpoint of satisfying the ANSI standard, but more practical for people
who want to port programs to that platform.

And that's the point of *having* a standard for the language, after all.
-- 
Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180;
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;         `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"