On Aug 15 2007 09:58, Kyle Moffett wrote:
quoted text >
> Irrespective of whatever the standard says, EVERY platform and
> compiler anybody makes nowadays has a NULL pointer value with all
> bits clear. Theoretically the standard allows otherwise, but such
> a decision would break so much code. Linux especially, we rely on
> the uninitialized data to have all bits clear and we depend on that
> producing NULL pointers; if a NULL pointer was not bitwise exactly
> 0 then the test "if (some_ptr != NULL)" would fail and we would
> start dereferencing garbage.
But if kmalloc returns NULL on failure, then testing for NULL
(irrespective of being 0 or 0xDEADBEEF) is ok.
What would actually concern me then is what "if (!some_ptr)" would do.
Probably not the right thing.
Jan
--
-
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: kfree(0) - ok? , Jan Engelhardt , (Wed Aug 15, 7:06 am)