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