Hi, > Even if there was a good reason to change it, there's way too much > code that does this kind of thing: > > foo = malloc(10); > if (!foo) exit(1);
that's wrong. NULL is guarenteed to be 0 but the null pointer not (C-FAQs chapter 5.19). The code only works because foo is compared with a constant zero (C-FAQs chapter 5.18). If foo would be compared with a variable 0 the if statement would always be true. Otherwise the compiler couldn't malloc or do other things at address 0, although the C standard allows you to do it (if it is possible with the hardware). Rolf
