linux-kernel - Re: Style Question

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <14DE5DBD-4164-4CDF-9690-631514EB15EF@mac.com>
Date:	Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:01:38 -0400
From:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Cong WANG <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Style Question

On Mar 11, 2007, at 16:41:51, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007 16:35:50 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Mar 11 2007 22:15, Cong WANG wrote:
>>> 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  :)

On the other hand when __cplusplus is defined they define it to the  
"__null" builtin, which GCC uses to give type conversion errors for  
"int foo = NULL" but not "char *foo = NULL".  A "((void *)0)"  
definition gives C++ type errors for both due to the broken C++ void  
pointer conversion problems.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
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/