On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Darren Jenkins wrote: > Hello Julia, > > I think pointer signedness is architecture dependant, but I have never > seen an architecture crazy enough to use signed memory addressing. > > I haven't looked at the associated code (because it is late here and I > am tired), but it looks like this bit is just checking if the struct > is NULL, not the struct member. > Depending on the associated code, this is probably the sensible thing > to do, as the memory will be allocated for the struct, so if the > allocation fails the pointer to the base of the struct will be NULL > and the pointer to the struct member will be "NULL + offsetof(struct, > member)" ie probably not null. OK, I see, good point. thanks, julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
