What is this shit in C that I can't reference a null pointer. What if I really have something stored at 0x00000000? Assfucks.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-27 13:35
Now you have two problems.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-27 13:44
Then it wouldn't be Touring-complete.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-27 13:48
>>1
I think that the C standard doesn't specify the actual address of the null pointer. It only specifies that the null pointer can never point to a valid address. So if you have something stored at 0x00000000 then you should be able to reference a pointer with a zero value, which wouldn't be the null pointer.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-27 13:56
>>1
Pointers aren't numbers. You can't have things stored at arbitrary addresses. FREE C
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-27 17:57
Ok, what if I have a POINTER at 0x00000000. What if I really really need to use 0x00000000 to point to something, and cannot use anything else. I mean, just because every CISC-style CPU automatically sets the Z-bit whenever it loads anything with all zeros, that means my freedom to use the first two memory locations of my computer is restricted? Fucking communists.
At least if they made the null pointer 0xFFFFFFFF that only wastes one byte of RAM, not an entire word length.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-27 18:01
Cry me a river
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-27 18:56
Your mom is so NULL that she is stored at 0x0000000000000000
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-27 20:48
>>6
Pointers aren't numbers. You can't have things stored at arbitrary addresses.
If you're really so concerned about accessing 0x00000000 there is this nice thing known as buffer underrun. Sure any good OS will give you a seg fault BECAUSE YOU NEVER EVER EVER ARE SUPPOSED TO WRITE TO THE BLOCK OF MEMORY THAT STARTS AT ADDRESS ZERO IN SOFTWARE EVER READ THE HARDWARE DATASHEETS YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT but you can still try.