From: Pancho.Jones@proton.me   
      
   On 29/08/2024 18:57, 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.   
   >   
      
   The follow question to the non-zero NULL pointer, is what OS didn't   
   protect memory address 0, so you could dereference a NULL pointer   
   without a hardware exception?   
      
   I never saw it myself, but we were always cautioned that such an OS   
   existed. Maybe it was an old wives' tale?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)