http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #7) > I can't think of a legitimate reason to have a null pointer constant in a > non-zero address space; there's already a null pointer constant, NULL, > effectively in all address spaces, so why would you want to redefine it? > That isn't a null pointer constant, since it isn't (void *); it can't be > converted to any other pointer type without warning, and I don't think it's > unreasonable to say it can't be converted to any other address space without > warning either. Thanks. While the one case did seem borderline to me, overall my concern is really about trying to understand all the cases, so I can document the feature nicely.
