Can a conforming C implementation #define NULL to be something wacky

by

In the C99 standard, §7.17.3 states that NULL “expands to an implementation defined null pointer constant”. Meanwhile §6.3.2.3.3 defines null pointer constant as “an integer constant expression with the value 0, or such an expression cast to type void *”. As there is no other definition for a null pointer constant, a conforming definition of NULL must expand to an integer constant expression with the value zero (or this cast to void *).

Further quoting from the C FAQ question 5.5 (emphasis added):

Section 4.1.5 of the C Standard states that NULL “expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant,” which means that the implementation gets to choose which form of 0 to use and whether to use a `void *` cast; see questions 5.6 and 5.7. “Implementation-defined” here does not mean that NULL might be #defined to match some implementation-specific nonzero internal null pointer value.

It makes perfect sense; since the standard requires a zero integer constant in pointer contexts to compile into a null pointer (regardless of whether or not the machine’s internal representation of that has a value of zero), the case where NULL is defined as zero must be handled anyhow. The programmer is not required to type NULL to obtain null pointers; it’s just a stylistic convention (and may help catch errors e.g. when a NULL defined as (void *)0 is used in a non-pointer context).

Edit: One source of confusion here seems to be the concise language used by the standard, i.e. it does not explicitly say that there is no other value that might be considered a null pointer constant. However, when the standard says “…is called a null pointer constant”, it means that exactly the given definitions are called null pointer constants. It does not need to explicitly follow every definition by stating what is non-conforming when (by definition) the standard defines what is conforming.

More Related Contents:

  1. Are there machines, where sizeof(char) != 1, or at least CHAR_BIT > 8?
  2. Are compound statements (blocks) surrounded by parens expressions in ANSI C?
  3. Effects of the extern keyword on C functions
  4. Is NULL always zero in C?
  5. Are compilers allowed to eliminate infinite loops?
  6. Does free(ptr) where ptr is NULL corrupt memory?
  7. Is unsigned integer subtraction defined behavior?
  8. When was the NULL macro not 0?
  9. Is an empty initializer list valid C code?
  10. Should I use char** argv or char* argv[]?
  11. Does printf(“%x”,1) invoke undefined behavior?
  12. What is the result of NULL + int?
  13. Is NULL always false?
  14. What happens in OS when we dereference a NULL pointer in C?
  15. Why does ‘fopen’ return a NULL pointer?
  16. Bitshift and integer promotion?
  17. Are constant C expressions evaluated at compile time or at runtime?
  18. Standard C library in mingW
  19. No defined type of a function parameter defaults to int? Am I insane?
  20. Is NULL in C required/defined to be zero?
  21. List of platforms supported by the C standard
  22. Difference between scanf() and strtol() / strtod() in parsing numbers
  23. Is it legal/well-defined C++ to call a non-static method that doesn’t access members through a null pointer?
  24. double negation in C : is it guaranteed to return 0/1?
  25. Can a “container_of” macro ever be strictly-conforming?
  26. Can a conversion from double to int be written in portable C
  27. Which section in C89 standard allows the “implicit int” rule?
  28. Is a compiler allowed to add functions to standard headers?
  29. Redefining NULL
  30. Integer overflow in C: standards and compilers

Leave a Comment