On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 08:25 -0200, Alex J. Dam wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 01:26:12AM -0400, Ernest L. Williams Jr. wrote: > > Should we use "NULL" to represent a null pointer or "0" to represent a > > null pointer? > > AFAIK, according to C++, they are equivalent. See, for example, > > http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#null Well, then what we are experiencing: 0 is an int and most likely 32 bits, NULL is a pointer and 64 bits in the 64-bit architecture. This then must be the problem, which makes using 0 to represent a NULL pointer not portable? Or would this be considered a bug with GCC for a 64-bit environment? Thanks, Ernesto
