Re: [Findutils-patches] [PATCH] Include sys/stat.h in files where we use struct stat.

[Eric Blake-1]

> My opinion here is, of course, not of value but I also always prefer 0
> over '\0' in C code for similar reasons.  However I also always prefer
> 0 over NULL too.  :-)  Zero is one of the few magic numbers and I
> prefer not seeing it obfuscated with a macro.

But that is bug-prone.

Consider:

printf("%p%d", NULL, 1);
vs.
printf("%p%d", 0, 1);

On a 32-bit platform, it works.  On a 64-bit platform, it fails.
Using NULL consistently prevents bugs like this, because
unlike 0, the named constant NULL also conveys type
information.  Yes, 'gcc -Wall' will tell you about this
particular example, but I find it easier to use a named
constant than to risk this type of bug.

Another reason to prefer NULL when a pointer is intended
is due to function overloading in C++, where foo(0) and
foo(NULL) could invoke different code paths.

-- 
Eric Blake

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Findutils-patches---PATCH--Include-sys-stat.h-in-files-where-we-use-struct-stat.-tf3981017.html#a11314399
Sent from the GNU - FindUtils - Patches mailing list archive at Nabble.com.