------- Comment #15 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-12-22 10:36 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > > so [implicit] conversion from NULL to int is OK. > > That's true where NULL is defined as 0 (or eg 0L), but that's not the only > permitted definition of NULL.
Nice selective quoting, you missed the part where I said "but 0 is still a valid definition of NULL" You claimed in comment 12 that the compiler will be *required* to reject conversions from NULL to int, which is patently not true if 0 or 0L is a valid definition of NULL. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35669
