Re: [PATCH] Use NULL instead of integer 0 in security/selinux/

[Elladan <elladan@eskimo.com>]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:47:58PM +0200, Olaf Titz wrote:
> > For some of us who are extremely familiar with C your argument is
> > confusing.  You make statements that sound like they are about the
> > definition of the C programming language when in fact they are
> > criticism of a given C programming style.
> >
> > Since I am already making distinctions 0 as the integer value and
> > 0 as the pointer constant when 0 is implicitly introduced.  It is
> > really not confusing to me in the case of manifest constants.
> 
> So the real question is why C has no "null" token like Java or Pascal
> and re-uses the "0" token (which is really no token by itself but a
> numeric-constant token which happens to have a special value).
> 
> If your argument holds that "0" in a pointer context really is a
> special token like Java's "null" (which is explicitly defined by the
> standard as a pointer different from any other pointer) then it would
> be possible to implement a compiler which not only defines NULL to
> -1L, as someone mentioned here, but actually generates an all-ones bit
> pattern out of the constant 0 when used in a pointer context, yet
> generates an all-zeros bit pattern when used in an integer context.
> It also would have to implement the implicit null-comparison in a
> boolean context appropriately.

This indeed is possible, and has been implemented in the past.  Some
segmented architectures use different segments for different data types,
and a segment tag is part of the appropriate null pointer.  Also,
obviously, some pointer types are different widths on some
architectures.

The C languages was defined in such a way that it works fine on such an
architecture.  int *p = 0;  will always result in the appropriate null
pointer for integers.

The one exception is if you have a variadic function, in which case you
have to cast the null pointer to the right type, eg. 
printf("%s\n", (char*)0);

What's not allowed in conformant portable C is clearing pointers to null
using memset.  That just results in a zero bit pattern.

Eg.,

struct foo {
	int *bar;
} x;
memset(&x, 0, sizeof(x));

However, implicit initializers are valid, and will fill in pointer types
with the appropriate null value, eg:

struct foo {
	int *bar;
} x = {};

In addition, defining NULL as (void*)0 is completely broken.  A void*
null pointer is not valid as a null pointer for some other type - void*
is a transitional type, it simply holds the bit values of other pointers
so you can cast them back later.

-J