Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007 16:16 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > You should *not* have to inform the machine that NULL is a pointer.
> For variadic functions, that expectation is invalid, AFAIK.
No, what's invalid is that using an unadorned 0 is understood as a "null
pointer" by the compiler. That would happen in a lot of places except
on a variadic function.
However, the platform may define NULL as it wishes, and indeed in our
c.h it is defined (conditionally) as (void *)0. If the platform had
such a definition then it would work without issues.
I assume the platform in question does something like
#define NULL 0
which would be silly.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre
"El conflicto es el camino real hacia la unión"
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2007-07-18 15:25:00|
|Subject: Re: execl() sentinel|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-07-18 15:04:28|
|Subject: Re: docfix - DELETE doesn't affect auto-analyze|