gcc and NULL function pointers.

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <1991Jun27.011959.14714 at ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
djimenez at ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Daniel Jimenez) writes:

   It won't do just to have a Pascal 'nil' in all pointer contexts,
   because pointers can be of different sizes.

But if "nil" occurred in a context where the compiler couldn't
determine the proper pointer type, an error message would be output.
That would, I think, solve all the problems; both

   int i = nil;
   execl("this", "that", "the other", "and", "more", nil);

would produce error messages, as I would expect.  In the absence of a
time machine, I think we could do

   #define NULL __nil

today, and "__nil" could have the semantics above.  I don't think this
could break any strictly-conforming ANSI C programs.  "__nil" could
instead mean "0" or "(void *) 0" with special switches, say "-ansi
-pedantic".  Anyone want to suggest it to the gcc maintainers?

--
  "Of course he has a knife; he always has a knife.  We all have knives.
  It's 1183 and we're barbarians." -- Eleanor of Aquitaine, "A Lion in Winter"
Tim McDaniel                 Applied Dynamics Int'l.; Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Internet: mcdaniel at adi.com                UUCP: {uunet,sharkey}!amara!mcdaniel