Am Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007 17:16 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> 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.
I suggest that you read through <http://c-faq.com/null/>, which is at odds
with your statements.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2007-07-18 15:44:39|
|Subject: Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2007-07-18 15:16:17|
|Subject: Re: execl() sentinel|