|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Some would also say that if you have to worry about the bit-pattern of
> null pointers, that's questionable optimization.
The only reason I brought it up is this grody code I'm trying to make work
has a number of places where it initializes a structure to zero with
memset(), and the structure has pointers in it.
Given that the structure is a description of the hardware built into the
machine, it's not going to be portable to different CPUs anyway, but I just
got curious as to whether I'd misunderstood last time I looked thru the
specs. People often mistakenly argue that C++ guarantees the bit pattern is
zero because you now write { char* x = 0; } instead of { char* x = NULL; }
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |