[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: definition of NULL
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: definition of NULL |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:31:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Eric Blake wrote:
> Should we make gnulib provide replacement headers for systems that have such
> a
> poorly defined NULL? Or is NULL even poorly defined in practice on any of
> gnulib's current set of reasonable porting targets?
I believe that this problem with NULL existed up until 1995. Since then, most
poorly maintained platforms have been 32-bit platforms - no problem. The
64-bit platforms that have been created since then got it right. The only
problem is with old library include files that were not updated. If, for
example, a program does
#include "gl.h" /* opengl */
#include <stdlib.h>
then it may get the 32-bit NULL definition from gl.h although the stdlib.h
file would provide a 64-bit NULL if it was to be included first.
> Any objections to this patch?
Looks fine.
Bruno