[tz] [PATCH 1/3] Assume C89.

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, October 12, 2012 17:09:15 Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > For this bit in date.c:
> > 
> > - found = select(FD_SETSIZE, &ready, (fd_set *)0, (fd_set *)0,
> > &tout); + found = select(FD_SETSIZE, &ready, 0, 0, &tout);
> > 
> > You probably want to use NULL, not a bare 0 for the 3rd and 4th
> > arguments.
> 
> Makes no difference; NULL is just a macro that translates to 0, sometimes
> with a mostly-unnecessary cast to void*.

Actually, I've heard of systems where it _did_ differ for some bizarre reason 
(which I think is why some recommend that you always use 0 and never NULL), 
which resulted in very bizarre behavior if you checked pointers for true or 
false directly or mixed 0 and NULL. But normally, NULL is 0, and any system 
where that's not true is definitely abnormal.

- Jonathan M Davis