From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12384-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30223 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2002 05:49:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30144 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 05:49:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 05:49:14 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BE03E3C88; Fri,  1 Feb 2002 00:49:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C5A2C52.5060904@cygnus.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:49:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa/cli] s/NO_FUNCTION/NULL/
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020129120916.6458G-100000@is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00829.txt.bz2

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> In C, NULL is typically ``(void*)0''.  What ever it is, it must be 
>> compatible with both data and code pointers.
>> 
>> I think this makes using NULL more robust than NO_FUNCTION?
> 
> 
> NULL _should_ be more robust than NO_FUNCTION, but you can never know
> what GCC will invent next ;-)
> 
> I guess we can postpone this, and use NULL, until we see some
> warnings.  With any luck, that will never happen.


Ok, it is in.

Andrew