> > i dont see your point. this has nothing to do with the NULL pointer, but > > with a pointer whose base address is 0, which saves the subtraction... > > as far as this macro concerns, NULL may be defined like this: > > #define NULL ((void *)400) > > No, it may not! Numeric 0 must convert to NULL pointer and vice versa > (if for nothing than for the fact, that NULL must be FALSE). Noone > said, that the typecast does not add some code though, so the real > memory representation may not be all zeroes. as i've said b4, i dont see what this macro has to do with the memory representation of the null pointer. the ((type *)0) member is used to get a pointer to a struct 'type', which is located at address 0 -> hence, the address of the member is its offset in the struct. nothing to do with actual memory... -- ======================================================================== nir. -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
