> More to the point, according to the C spec, NULL is not /required/ to
> trap. Ever. The compiler is 100% free to make it do whatever it likes.
> 
> Which isn't especially surprising. The surprising thing is that you've
> got code there explicitly to check for a null pointer, and the optimiser
> may or may not end up removing it for you.

It is not surprising if you _know_ C.
i.o.w. if it is surprising for you, your C knowledge are incomplete. ^^

L.

Post a reply to this message