=> > <snip> => > => > According to the language definition, a constant 0 in a pointer => > context is converted into a null pointer at compile time.That => > is, in an initialization, assignment, or comparison when one => > side is a variable or expression of pointer type, the compiler => > can tell that a constant 0 on the other side requests a null => > pointer, and generate the correctly-typed null pointer value. => > => > </snip> => => <stuff deleted/> => => > PS : Anybody having copy of the ANSI C-standard may throw some light on => > it pleasezzzzzzzz..... ! :) => => I don't have the ANSI C spec, but I'm going to assume that it agrees with => K&R on this (yeah, I know. I should never assume). => => K&R (2nd edition) explicitly state that the null pointer and the integer => "0" are interchangeable. So, what would be your inference in the case of architectures where the null pointer is not designated by 0(zero) (lot of them are mentioned there on the C-faq page). What would then ((struct a *)0L)->field refer to and how will the compiler know that (null-pointer)->field is required to evaluate the offset of field in the structure "a" ? Any suggestions or hints are welcome. :) Thanks -neeraj -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
