On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
> > its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
> > appears to be very old and is completely bogus
>
> I do
On Jul 4, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
> its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
> appears to be very old and is completely bogus
I don't agree with the completely bogus part. Why not
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Bruce Korb wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >
>> > It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
>> > its perfectly valid NULL define from (
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
> > its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
> > appears to be very old and is
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
> its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
> appears to be very old and is completely bogus - it replaces
> (void *)0 with 0 und
It happens that OpenBSD suffers from a bogus fixinclude that changes
its perfectly valid NULL define from (void *)0 to 0. The fix itself
appears to be very old and is completely bogus - it replaces
(void *)0 with 0 under the assumption the former is invalid for C++ -
which is true - but 0 is ina
