From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Seebach <seebs@monolith.solon.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@cygnus.com>
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: linux libio status 
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:16:00 -0000
Message-id: <199710160316.WAA21814@monolith.solon.com>
References: <u9zpoarh0w.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1997-10/msg00610.html

In message < u9zpoarh0w.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com >, Jason Merrill writes:
>This is why we have a NULL macro.  The gcc stddef.h provides an appropriate
>definition, so we can put

>#undef NULL
>#define __need_NULL
>#include <stddef.h>
>#undef __need_NULL

>somewhere strategic, and that should do the trick.

Well, strictly speaking, I don't think that's correct - I *believe* a
user who has not included <stddef.h> is allowed to assume that not everything
in it is defined.  I think an implementation is obliged to have the common
declaration of NULL, if there is one, be in some other header included by
<stddef.h> and friends.

>C89 may not have, but gcc defines it that way.

Well, yeah, but that's not very useful to a person writing code not
exclusively for use with one compiler... :)

-s