On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:09:17 +0200 Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
I know how you may feel, believe me. Some time ago I proposed things like 0p as null pointer literal, or a new null keyword (the former being a palliative for the latter);
0p or null would certainly help clarify the "null-pointer" issue. I assume you have done something similar to moving code to x86_64? Those pesky "..." interfaces. Based on Stroustrup's recommendation and years of practice, our developers use "0" for null pointers, only to be bitten by passing "0" as a pointer to a vararg function. Oops. On x86_64, ints are 32 bits, and 0 is passed as an int to a vararg functions because there is no signature forcing an implicit type promotion. I guess you could say to not use vararg functions, but that is impossible if you also use C libraries. Even if their use is "hidden" away in library code, at some point you have to make the distinction. Worse, the problems result in runtime errors... hopefully core dumps in development and testing. So... the rule now is to use NULL anytime a vararg function is being called... 0 otherwise... until we run into the next problem...