Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:53:18 -0500 From: Raz Reply-To: Raz To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Warnings for converting non-pointer types to NULL In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline References: X-IsSubscribed: yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id j4CJrRuG009095 On 5/12/05, Mikael wrote: > I guess presume NULL is a macro evaulting to 0 in windows.h and a typedef > for (void *)0 in , or? No. Not in . Since you are using that header file, I assume you are using C++. In C++, NULL is 0, not (void *)0 as it is in C. > > Since I want to have this warning, the approach I've taken is to always > include after . Is approach correct and safe or can it > get me in trouble? Since marcos cannot be "overloaded" or "overridden", the marcos would take precedence over conflicting marcos as long as is included first. However, this should not make a different since, again assuming you are using C++, both marcos should be defined to the same value. > > Thanks for any replies > > / M > > -- > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > > -- ------------------------------------------- Dan Day http://razzerblog.blogspot.com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/