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

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Jonathan M Davis said:
>> 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), 

This is never the case for an implementation conforming to any of C90, C94, or
C99.

> which resulted in very bizarre behavior if you checked pointers for true or 
> false directly or mixed 0 and NULL.

That sounds like a problem with C++, where you can't safely use "(void *)
0" as a null pointer.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather          | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive at davros.org     | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646