From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: sparse (static analyzer) report |
Date: | 2005-01-15 08:02:45 |
Message-ID: | 7648.1105776165@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
>> Hmm. Well, it showed the multiple incorrect uses of 0 as NULL in
>> dllist.c and other places,
> Incidentally, while it may not be conformant to your style guidelines, use of
> the constant 0 compared to or assigned to a pointer is a perfectly valid ANSI
> spelling for NULL.
Absolutely. But I agree that it is more readable to use NULL when you
mean a null pointer, and 0 when you mean an integer zero. The C
standard may not distinguish these concepts, but I do ;-)
Something that I don't have a real strong feeling about is
if (ptr != NULL)
versus
if (ptr)
I've been known to write both. Can anyone mount a good readability
argument for one over the other?
How about the inverse case,
if (ptr == NULL)
versus
if (!ptr)
Applying a boolean ! to a pointer seems a bit shaky to me, though
it's certainly a common locution.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-01-15 08:33:51 | Re: [PORTS] 8.0.0rc4 / OpenBSD 3.6 / amd64 success |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-01-15 07:14:17 | Re: sparse (static analyzer) report |