From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12309-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11898 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2002 10:10:41 -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 11865 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2002 10:10:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2002 10:10:39 -0000
Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2])
	by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA06692;
	Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:09:44 +0200 (IST)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:10:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Sender: eliz@is
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
cc: fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa/cli] s/NO_FUNCTION/NULL/
In-Reply-To: <3C56237F.4090803@cygnus.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020129120916.6458G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00754.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.