Re: [rfa/cli] s/NO_FUNCTION/NULL/

Andrew Cagney
2002-02-01T05:49:18Z

> 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