Op donderdag 2 maart 2017 21:16:36 UTC+1 schreef Jeffrey Walton:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> In preparation for GCC 7, we needed to cleanup the use of NULL and 0
> values for pointers. Some places we were using 0, some places were were
> using NULL. All of them lit up like a Christmas tree under GCC 7, which
> switched to -std=gnu++17 by default. Under C++17, the use of the constant 0
> (which NULL is defined as), produced an endless stream of warnings.
>
> Our code now looks like:
>
> struct C
> {
> C : m_ptr(NULLPTR) {}
> ...
>
> byte* m_ptr;
> };
>
> And then NULLPTR is a macro:
>
> #if defined(CRYPTOPP_CXX11_NULLPTR) && !defined(NULLPTR)
> # define NULLPTR nullptr
> #elif !defined(NULLPTR)
> # define NULLPTR NULL
> #endif // CRYPTOPP_CXX11_NULLPTR
>
> Should we use nullptr everywhere in the code, and define:
>
> // nullptr is not available in C++03, and its not defined. Define it
> now.
> #if !defined(CRYPTOPP_CXX11_NULLPTR) && !defined(nullptr)
> # define nullptr NULL
> #endif
>
> NULLPTR vs nullptr seems to be mostly aesthetic. However, using nullptr
> in the source code (as opposed to NULLPTR) will make IDE colorizers
> highlight it as a literal.
>
> Does anyone have a preference?
>
nullptr is the standard and the future.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users"
Google Group.
To unsubscribe, send an email to cryptopp-users-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at
http://www.cryptopp.com.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Crypto++ Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to cryptopp-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
