On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:53 PM Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 12:41:37PM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > > You could view NULL as a special pointer pointing to an inaccessible
> > > zero sized object. Adding 0 to it still points to the same special
&
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:36 PM Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:50:50AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 2:30 PM Taylor R Campbell
> > > I ask because in principle a conformant implementation could compile
> > > the Net
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:38:31AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > The way I read this is:
> >
> > "If the pointer operand points to an element of an array object" -- it
> > does not (null is
ant for performance purposes. It's also not important
> for expressive purposes, because I could just as well have written
> assert(a != NULL).
>
> > > I was told by Roman that it was checked during a C committee meeting and
> > > confirmed to be an intentional UB.
> >
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:21 AM Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 01:34:23PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
> > We instruct a C compiler that pointer used in the pserialize macros is
> > never NULL, as the side effect of adding to it 0.
>
> I question that side effect.
>
> The
