[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5D056606-6284-4331-98DB-77123816D5B8@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:58:29 -0400
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
Cc: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>,
Jason Uhlenkott <jasonuhl@...onuhl.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kfree(0) - ok?
On Aug 15, 2007, at 06:20:27, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Aug 15 2007 11:58, Rene Herman wrote:
>>>> NULL is not 0 though.
>>> It is. Its representation isn't guaranteed to be all-bits-zero,
>>
>> He said the null _pointer_ isn't guaranteed to be all-bits zero.
>> And it isn't. Read the standard or the faq.
>
> 0 is all-bits-zero.
> NULL is 0. ("It is.", above)
>
> Transitively, this would make NULL all-bits-zero. I might have
> missed something, though, perhaps that the cast to void* makes it
> intransitive. But leave it at whatever the standard says.
>
>> but the constant value 0 when used in pointer context is always a
>> null pointer (and in fact the standard requires that NULL be
>> #defined as 0 or a cast thereof).
Irrespective of whatever the standard says, EVERY platform and
compiler anybody makes nowadays has a NULL pointer value with all
bits clear. Theoretically the standard allows otherwise, but such a
decision would break so much code. Linux especially, we rely on the
uninitialized data to have all bits clear and we depend on that
producing NULL pointers; if a NULL pointer was not bitwise exactly 0
then the test "if (some_ptr != NULL)" would fail and we would start
dereferencing garbage.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists