Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:21620 comp.std.c:1623
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Creating pointer with all bits 0 (was: Referencing NULL pointers)
Message-ID: <10816@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Date: 8 Sep 89 02:40:29 GMT
References: <1989Aug31.052756.18524@sq.sq.com> <2030@se-sd.NCR.COM> <1989Sep6.052228.17374@algor2.algorists.com>
Reply-To: diamond@riks. (Norman Diamond)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 17

In article <1989Sep6.052228.17374@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:

>Question: Is an implementation whose null pointer is the same as the
>result of some integer-to-pointer cast conforming?  Apparently not,
>since 3.2.2.3 states, "... a null pointer is guaranteed to compare
>unequal to a pointer to any object or function."

This looks like a bit of a problem all right.  Can it still be fixed
by editorial change?  For example, "... any legally created object or
function" or "... any C object or function."

--
-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corporation (diamond@ws.sony.junet)
  The above opinions are inherited by your machine's init process (pid 1),
  after being disowned and orphaned.  However, if you see this at Waterloo or
  Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.