Messages in this thread | | | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Use NULL instead of integer 0 in security/selinux/ | Date | Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:03:15 -0400 |
| |
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Is doing memset(&(struct with_embeded_pointers), 0, sizeof(struct)) > also wrong? > > I don't see that 0 is WRONG. I do agree that ``((void *)0)'' is > slightly more typesafe than ``0'', but since we don't have a lot of > (void *) pointers in the kernel that is still the WRONG pointer type. > > I do see that NULL has superior readability and maintainability and so > should be encouraged by Documentation/CodingStyle. > > The B and K&R roots of a simple single type language are what give C > most of it's simplicity flexibility and power. Please don't be so > eager to throw those out. > > You want to be so typesafe it sounds like you want to recode the > kernel in Pascal. You've written sparse, so it should be just a little > more work to write a Pascal backend. After that the kernel will be so > typesafe the compiler won't let us poor programmers get it wrong.
You say that as if it were a bad thing...
I don't have a current C standard handy, but I believe there's a requirement that otherwise uninitialized static pointers be initialized to NULL even if that isn't "all bits off."
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |