??? 01/13/11 09:26 Read: times |
#180547 - No guarantee that a NULL pointer points to any memory Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Per Westermark said:
0 is a synonym for NULL. Yes - in the context of pointers: ISO/IEC 9899:1990 said:
6.2.2.3 Pointers
An integral constant expression with the value 0 ... is called a null pointer constant. Per Westermark said:
the standard doesn't guarantee that a NULL pointer points to any memory range at all. Correct. In fact, the Standard just requires that a NULL pointer points to nothing valid at all within the program: ISO/IEC 9899:1990 said:
6.2.2.3 Pointers
a null pointer is guaranteed to compare unequal to a pointer to any object or function |
Topic | Author | Date |
sdcc internal error / C syntax | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
legality of indexing NULL pointer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
bug | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
version | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
version revisited | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
thank you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Fixed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
no snapshot | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
works | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
0 is special - but so is NULL. indexing around NULL is bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
No guarantee that a NULL pointer points to any memory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I know :-( | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Use of __at ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What is "that way"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
the antique version.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
XBYTE macro | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Okay, then the following definition... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: David's remarks about volatility | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Close, but no cigar | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Avoid the 'volatile' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
instead of offsetting... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Dereferencing a '_REG | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Use of __at ? [ed] | 01/01/70 00:00 |