On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Mike Stump wrote:
On Jul 4, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
appears to be very old and is completely bogus
I don't
It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
appears to be very old and is completely bogus - it replaces
(void *)0 with 0 under the assumption the former is invalid for C++ -
which is true - but 0 is
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
appears to be very old and is completely bogus - it replaces
(void
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Bruce Korb wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
its perfectly valid
On Jul 4, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
appears to be very old and is completely bogus
I don't agree with the completely bogus part. Why not
