[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:49:33 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Rasmus Villemoes' <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Uecker <Martin.Uecker@....uni-goettingen.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] linux/const.h: Explain how __is_constexpr() works
From: Rasmus Villemoes
> Sent: 01 February 2022 13:06
...
> > + * - The C standard defines an "integer constant expression" as different
> > + * from a "null pointer constant" (an integer constant 0 pointer).
>
> I don't see the point of this bullet. Yes, an ICE is a distinct concept
> from a null pointer constant, obviously. One is defined in terms of the
> other - and your parenthesis is not an accurate paraphrase of the
> definition of a null pointer constant.
>From what I remember a "null pointer constant" is in "integer constant
expression with value 0 cast to a pointer type".
So (void *)(1-1) is just as valid as (void *)0.
Not sure any of it is relevant here.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists