On 1/9/23 16:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 15:17, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >> >> On 1/6/23 19:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> Seems to me that GCC code should just use nullptr directly not redefine >>> NULL. >> >> Sure, but that would lead to a huge patch which would rename NULL to >> nullptr, right? > > > Yeah, which can probably be done separately (or not done at all).
That would be a massive patch affecting all targets and FEs. > I was just commenting on the comment that Andrew showed. That comment > explain that nullptr is better than 0 as a null pointer constant, > which is a good reason to prefer nullptr. But not a good reason to > redefine NULL; in code with a minimum requirement of C++11 you can > just use nullptr directly. Ok, so does it mean my patch addresses what can be easily adjusted? Thanks, Martin
