Checking for NULL pointer in C/C++ - Stack Overflow
Trying to understand NULL pointers
what is a null pointer in c - Stack Overflow
c - Is NULL a pointer? - Stack Overflow
Videos
In my experience, tests of the form if (ptr) or if (!ptr) are preferred. They do not depend on the definition of the symbol NULL. They do not expose the opportunity for the accidental assignment. And they are clear and succinct.
Edit: As SoapBox points out in a comment, they are compatible with C++ classes such as unique_ptr, shared_ptr, auto_ptr that are objects that act as pointers and which provide a conversion to bool to enable exactly this idiom. For these objects, an explicit comparison to NULL would have to invoke a conversion to pointer which may have other semantic side effects or be more expensive than the simple existence check that the bool conversion implies.
I have a preference for code that says what it means without unneeded text. if (ptr != NULL) has the same meaning as if (ptr) but at the cost of redundant specificity. The next logical thing is to write if ((ptr != NULL) == TRUE) and that way lies madness. The C language is clear that a boolean tested by if, while or the like has a specific meaning of non-zero value is true and zero is false. Redundancy does not make it clearer.
if (foo) is clear enough. Use it.
Hello all again,
I have another stupid question here lol, so I'm trying to wrap my head around NULL. Im currently under the impression that NULL is a built in constant that has a value of zero, but what does that actually mean? When would it be appropriate to use null? If someone could explain it in layman's terms that would be super helpful!
Any pointer type with the value 0 is called a null pointer. Here is the explanation from the C standard §6.3.2.3:
- An integer constant expression with the value 0, or such an expression cast to type void *, is called a null pointer constant. If a null pointer constant is converted to a pointer type, the resulting pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed to compare unequal to a pointer to any object or function
Null pointer is a pointer that points to memory address 0. Most system reserve this address so that no object will ever reside in there. This reservation allows to use it as blank address.
If you try to read or write from null pointer you will get runtime error which is sometimes called segmentation fault, or null pointer exception.
In your example the null pointer is used to indicate end of the list. So this condition (struct entry *) 0, checks if you have reached end of the list and iteration should stop
Usually it considered better form to use constant NULL instead of literal value 0. This makes code more readable, and also covers very rare case when NULL pointer is not a 0
The cast (struct entry *) is just to avoid compiler warning, because literal 0 is of type integer not a pointer. That's another reason to use constant NULL, because it is usually defined as (void*) 0 which compares nicely to any pointer value without a warning from compiler
In C, NULL is a macro that expands to a null pointer constant.
7.19p3
The macros are
NULL which expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant; ...
A null pointer constant is an integer constant expression with the value 0 (
e.g., 0, 1-1, 42*0LL, etc.) or such an expression cast to (void*).
6.3.2.3p3
An integer constant expression with the value 0, or such an expression cast to type void *, is called a null pointer constant.66) If a null pointer constant is converted to a pointer type, the resulting pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed to compare unequal to a pointer to any object or function.
Most common C implementations define NULL to be 0, 0L, or ((void*)0).
So you are correct. NULL need not be a pointer.
(IIRC, C++ doesn't even allow the (void*) cast in NULL, meaning NULL in C++ always has integer type. Because of that and because void* pointers
do not compare with regular pointers so readily in C++, C++>=11 now has a special nullptr keyword.)
NULL itself is not a pointer, it is a macro that can be used to initialize a pointer to the null pointer value of its type. When compared to a pointer, it compares equal if the pointer is a null pointer and unequal if the pointer is a valid pointer to an object of its type.
There is no semantic difference between char *p = 0; and char *p = NULL; but the latter is more explicit and using NULL instead of 0 is more informative in circumstances where the other operand is not obviously a pointer or if comparing to an integer looks like a type mismatch:
FILE *fp = fopen("myfile", "r");
if (fp == NULL) {
/* report the error */
}
Similarly, there is no semantical difference in C between '\0' and 0, they both are int constants. The first is the null byte, the second the null value. Using 0, '\0' and NULL wisely may seem futile but makes code more readable by other programmers and oneself too.
The confusion may come from misspelling or mishearing the null pointer as the NULL pointer. The C Standard was carefully proof read to only use null pointer and refer to NULL only as the macro NULL.
Note however that one the accepted definitions of NULL, #define NULL ((void*)0) makes NULL a null pointer to void.