On Thu, 28 May 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 1998, Pete Ryland wrote:
>
> >5.5 it is the compiler's responsibility to generate whatever bit pattern
> >the machine uses for
> >that null pointer. Therefore, #defining NULL as 0 on a machine for which
> >internal null pointers are nonzero is as valid as on any other
>
> Ok thanks! But what will happen if I will redefine NULL as (void
> *)0xffffffff as in my kernel project? Maybe we choosed 0xffffffff to goes
> around the autocompiler initialization of NULL and to choose by hand which
> page to not allocate in the TLB? I am not the one that take the decision
> to initialize NULL to 0xffffffff, I' ll ask to the guy too in the meantime
> ;-).
This could perhaps be valid where you have no control over the value
chosen by the compiler, but would like to specify the value you want to
use. You would then have to *always* compare with NULL, rather than using
a compare with "0" or using "!". Hmm.. There may be some albeits to this
however. I'll have a think about it.
Pete
>
> Andrea[s] Arcangeli
>
Pete Ryland Home phone: +61 2 9697 9262 Mobile: 014 035 802
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ UIN: 4256333
WWW: http://www.pdr.ml.org ftp: ftp.pdr.ml.org
