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: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: fnasser at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:09:43 +0200 (IST)
- Subject: Re: [rfa/cli] s/NO_FUNCTION/NULL/
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.