This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/cli] s/NO_FUNCTION/NULL/
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Cc: fnasser at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:49:06 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa/cli] s/NO_FUNCTION/NULL/
- References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020129120916.6458G-100000@is>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>
>> In C, NULL is typically ``(void*)0''. What ever it is, it must be
>> compatible with both data and code pointers.
>>
>> I think this makes using NULL more robust than NO_FUNCTION?
>
>
> NULL _should_ be more robust than NO_FUNCTION, but you can never know
> what GCC will invent next ;-)
>
> I guess we can postpone this, and use NULL, until we see some
> warnings. With any luck, that will never happen.
Ok, it is in.
Andrew