This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: linux libio status
- To: Olivier dot Galibert at mines dot u-nancy dot fr (Olivier Galibert)
- Subject: Re: linux libio status
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 97 9:04:20 PDT
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 1997 at 11:23:49PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > We need to silence these warnings. For the NULL, I suggest a global
> > s/NULL/0/ in the C++ iostreams headers. There is no reason to write
> > NULL, it is just a source of problems like this (*especially* since
> > we have changed C++ to be strict about void*).
>
> Don't use '0' but '0L'. This way you will be OK with NULL in stdargs
> when int=32b and pointer=64b.
And you'll be broken on platforms where sizeof(long) != sizeof(pointer),
or at least you would if it weren't for the fact that C++ requires
prototypes for all functions. Remember, we are talking about C++ here,
not C.
Stroustrup says (The C++ Programming Language, 3rd Edition, p. 88)
"Because of C++'s tighter type checking, the use of plain 0, rather than
any suggested NULL macro, leads to fewer problems. If you feel that you
must define NULL, use
const int NULL = 0;
..."
There is a similar discussion in the comp.lang.c++ FAQ.
In C++, there are always prototypes. Thus 0 or 0L makes no difference,
and in fact the "standard null pointer" is essentially 0 in C++. The
argument is coerced to the proper pointer. However, standard C++ does
not let you convert (void *) to (T *) without a cast, so defining NULL
as (void *)0 is completely broken in C++. It used to work in g++, but
that was an extension (furthermore this extension prevented g++ from
implementing the standard overloading rules correctly). Hence
The only exception is functions with ... in their spec. Here, neither 0
nor 0L will result in portable code. Your suggestion switches the
erroneous assumption that sizeof(T *) == sizeof(int) with another
erroneous assumption, that sizeof(T *) == sizeof(long). Worse, you leave
users with the idea that they can safely use NULL for any null pointer
type, even in variadic functions. Sorry, you can't do that in standard
C++. For variadic functions, users must declare any optional arguments
correctly, period.
Conclusion: we should deprecate the use of NULL in C++ code. If we
must define NULL for C++ code, it must be 0. Nothing else.