From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 29/08/2024 19:13, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:   
   > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:57:57 +0100   
   > John Aldridge  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article <20240829102839.5bb67af25e568ebabc65ede6@eircom.net>,   
   >> steveo@eircom.net says...   
   >>>   
   >>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:32:49 +0100   
   >>> Richard Kettlewell  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I don?t think I?d fault either decision though the fact that we?ve   
   >>>> ended up with two conventions does make writing/maintaining portable   
   >>>> code a bit more annoying,   
   >>>   
   >>> 	Portable code should only rely on the standards not   
   >>> implementations, some very weird possibilities are legal within the   
   >>> standard.   
   >>   
   >> Heh, yes. I worked for several years on a machine where a null pointer   
   >> wasn't all bits zero, and where char* was a different size to any other   
   >> pointer.   
   >   
   > 	That rings vague bells, what was it ?   
   >   
   24 bit pointers were I think quite common, but isn't the 'null pointer'   
   *defined* to be   
   (Char *)0 ?   
   Otherwise how could you test for it?   
      
   --   
   Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.   
      
   "Saki"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)