Re: NULL. Again. (was Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22pre10: {,un}likely_p())

[Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>]

Sean Neakums wrote:
> Chip Salzenberg <chip@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>According to Jamie Lokier:
>>
>>>Not just K&R.  These are different because of varargs:
>>>	printf ("%p", NULL);
>>>	printf ("%p", 0);
>>
>>*SIGH*  I thought incorrect folk wisdom about NULL and zero and pointer
>>conversions had long since died out.  More fool I.  Please, *please*,
>>_no_one_else_ argue about NULL/zero/false etc. until after reading this:
>>
>>  ===[[  http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/s5.html  ]]===
>>
>>I thank you, and linux users everywhere thank you.
> 
> 
> I had thought that the need for writing NULL where a pointer is
> expected in varags functions was because the machine may have
> different sizes for pointers and int.  In the case of the second
> printf call above, if pointers are 64-bit and integers are 32-bit,
> printf will read eight bytes from the stack, and only four will have
> been occupied by the integer 0.
> 

Yes, but you're leaving information out.  If you read the FAQ, you'll 
find that NULL would not be the right thing to use in some cases.  For 
instance, (char *)0 may be a different value from (void *)0, so it's 
best to cast the pointer when passing to printf or something which uses 
varargs.