On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 15:04, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, or just include stdlib.h and define to NULL. > NULL is in C89, but I know we have found systems where it was not defined, otherwise we would just use NULL instead of PETSC_NULL everywhere. Is this still the case, or just a historical mishap that _everyone_ has fixed? > > 2) Can we at least fix it for C by using #define PETSC_NULL > ((void*) 0) in C and using 0 in C++. After all nobody really uses PETSc > from C++ :-) > > > > actually, we could try to define PETS_NULL as "0" in 32bits and "0L" > in 64bits (OS X, Linux)... For WinDog 64, this does not work, I do not > remember if there is some way to specify literals for __in64 ... > perhaps ((__in64)0) would do... > We already test for long long, so we have access to something equivalent to uintptr_t. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111109/2e8a43e2/attachment.html>
