RE: C++ gnome code vs. gcc-2.95.1

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

It is glib that is defining NULL.  Doing a cvs log on glib.h, we see that
the problem is fixed in the HEAD branch (revision 1.140):

Wed Sep 22 01:53:18 1999  Tim Janik  <timj@gtk.org>

        * glib.h (NULL): define NULL as (0L) if __cplusplus is defined, to
        avoid "ANSI C++ forbids implicit conversion from `void *' in argument
        passing" errors upon NULL usage in C++ programs (gcc-2.95 is on crack
        for erroring out on this, instead of just issueing a warning).

        * glib.h (g_trash_stack_pop): use uncasted NULL again.


Maybe this patch should be merged in from the head branch.

James.

--
Email: james@daa.com.au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/


On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Marcin Gorycki wrote:

> > On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Marcin Gorycki wrote:
> > > > Hmm... Can you #undef NULL where you use these macros and 
> > > > define NULL as above?
> > > 
> > > sure I can, but should I be forced to do it ? Shouldn't the macros
> > > themselves be fixed ?
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't think 0 is correct in C; that is the problem. Using 0 
> > for the NULL
> > pointer may cause "implicit conversion from integer to 
> > pointer" warnings.
> 
> solution:
> 
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> #undef NULL
> #define NULL 0
> #endif 
> 
> marcin
> 
> 
> -- 
>         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>