Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Is #define NULL 0L ok? Message-ID: <1808@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 20:31:07 EST Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1808 Posted: Mon Mar 12 20:31:07 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 20:38:26 EST References: <4072@edai.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 19 > #include> #undef NULL > #define NULL 0L > This works fine on the VAX, but then so did NULL=0. Can any > reader with a ptr=32&int=16 C compiler tell me if this is ok > for such compilers? Yes, it works on our compiler. However, "lint" will *still* yell at you (it isn't complaining about the size of the object, it's complaining about its type), it means the code won't work on a 16-bit machine (even if it would fit) nor will it work on a machine where (to pick a possibly strange example) pointers and "int"s are 32 bits while "long"s are 64 bits, and it won't work on a machine where the representation of a null pointer isn't a string of all zero bits. Why not just run the code through "lint" and read and heed its warnings? Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy