SalzR> Looks like a compiler bug; NULL is supposed to be safely
SalzR> castable to any pointer type, and compared against any pointer
SalzR> type.
Depends on. If NULL is defined like this:
#define NULL 0
then you're perfectly right, but if it's defined like this:
#define NULL ((void *)0)
then I'm dubious at least. I don't have the standard here, but I'm
pretty sure it says that 0 can be cast to any pointer, not necessarely
NULL. Compaq C did of course not complain when I replaced NULL with
0.
Have you noticed, if you read The C++ Programming Language, how he
completely avoids NULL and consequently uses 0 instead? I think he's
got at least one clue on this issue.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-161 43 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
