X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:54:55 -0500
Message-Id: <200401231354.i0NDstL4021586@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.OSF.4.58.0401231150080.23983@sirppi.helsinki.fi> (message
	from Esa A E Peuha on Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:54:15 +0200 (EET))
Subject: Re: Patch for bsearch
References: <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0401201143590 DOT 29095 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
 <200401201626 DOT i0KGQ7d8026812 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0401231150080 DOT 23983 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> > I'm also not a big fan of "NULL" in general, but it's OK in this case.
> > In general, NULL is *not* the same as a literal zero.
> 
> I thought the whole point of that difference was _not_ to use literal
> zero where it would be implicitly cast to a pointer.

For DJGPP, yes, although there was a time when NULL was defined to be
__null sometimes (before they got that mess straightened out) and I've
encountered platforms where NULL is defined to something too strict to
be used as a generic null pointer.  Sad, but true.  The literal '0' is
always able to be cast to a pointer of any type, but that cannot
always be said for NULL (except most of the time in DJGPP, of course ;).