[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200703111641.52066.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:41:51 -0400
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Cong WANG <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Style Question
On Sunday 11 March 2007 16:35:50 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Mar 11 2007 22:15, Cong WANG wrote:
> > Another question is about NULL. AFAIK, in user space, using NULL is
> > better than directly using 0 in C. In kernel, I know it used its own
> > NULL, which may be defined as ((void*)0), but it's _still_ different
> > from raw zero.
>
> In what way?
>
> >So can I say using NULL is better than 0 in kernel?
>
> On what basis? Do you even know what NULL is defined as in
> (C, not C++) userspace? Think about it.
IIRC, the glibc and GCC headers define NULL as (void*)0 :)
>
>
> Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists