Sender: Gabriel DOT Dos-Reis AT cmla DOT ens-cachan DOT fr
To: law AT cygnus DOT com
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, mrs AT windriver DOT com,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org,
        martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de
Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References: <10276 DOT 964283575 AT upchuck>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr AT codesourcery DOT com>
In-Reply-To: Jeffrey A Law's message of "Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:32:55 -0600"
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 22 Jul 2000 20:12:52 +0200
Message-ID: <flaefayqxn.fsf@riz.cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 19.34
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Jeffrey A Law <law AT cygnus DOT com> writes:

[...]

| Let's take the __null issue again.  According to the C++ standard it is
| an implementation-defined C++ null pointer constant -- it also states
| that (void *)0 is not an acceptable value.
| 
| It turns out that using "0" doesn't work, nor does "0L" for reasons I
| can't remember.

"0" or "0L" might be acceptable, for an appropriate definition of
"acceptable".  However, I'm firmly convinced that GCC's approach is the
way to go, as far as the C++ front-end is concerned.  It enables us to
issue warning when a use of NULL might lead to unintended semantic.
In that regard, GCC is far superior to its competitors.

-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC                             http://www.codesourcery.com