Actually, you can use a literal 0 anyplace you would use NULL.
Section 6.3.2.3p3 of the C standard states:
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.
And section 7.19p3 states:
The macros are:
CopyNULLwhich expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant
So 0 qualifies as a null pointer constant, as does (void *)0 and NULL. The use of NULL is preferred however as it makes it more evident to the reader that a null pointer is being used and not the integer value 0.
Actually, you can use a literal 0 anyplace you would use NULL.
Section 6.3.2.3p3 of the C standard states:
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.
And section 7.19p3 states:
The macros are:
CopyNULLwhich expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant
So 0 qualifies as a null pointer constant, as does (void *)0 and NULL. The use of NULL is preferred however as it makes it more evident to the reader that a null pointer is being used and not the integer value 0.
NULL is used to make it clear it is a pointer type.
Ideally, the C implementation would define NULL as ((void *) 0) or something equivalent, and programmers would always use NULL when they want a null pointer constant.
If this is done, then, when a programmer has, for example, an int *x and accidentally writes *x = NULL;, then the compiler can recognize that a mistake has been made, because the left side of = has type int, and the right side has type void *, and this is not a proper combination for assignment.
In contrast, if the programmer accidentally writes *x = 0; instead of x = 0;, then the compiler cannot recognize this mistake, because the left side has type int, and the right side has type int, and that is a valid combination.
Thus, when NULL is defined well and is used, mistakes are detected earlier.
In particular answer to your question “Is there a context in which just plain literal 0 would not work exactly the same?”:
- In correct code,
NULLand0may be used interchangeably as null pointer constants. 0will function as an integer (non-pointer) constant, butNULLmight not, depending on how the C implementation defines it.- For the purpose of detecting errors,
NULLand0do not work exactly the same; usingNULLwith a good definition serves to help detect some mistakes that using0does not.
The C standard allows 0 to be used for null pointer constants for historic reasons. However, this is not beneficial except for allowing previously written code to compile in compilers using current C standards. New code should avoid using 0 as a null pointer constant.
So I use C# and I often see many devs use null.
What and which kind of situation do you use this variable?
I am reading c# guide on programming book and I am on Clearing memory now and I haven't encountered null yet. Should I be worried?
What is the difference between NULL in C++ and null in Java? - Stack Overflow
NULL Define in c & c++ differs?! | Handmade Network
c - Correct way of defining NULL and NULL_POINTER? - Stack Overflow
Understanding difference between 0 and NULL
Videos
Actually, you can use a literal 0 anyplace you would use NULL.
Section 6.3.2.3p3 of the C standard states:
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.
And section 7.19p3 states:
The macros are:
CopyNULLwhich expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant
So 0 qualifies as a null pointer constant, as does (void *)0 and NULL. The use of NULL is preferred however as it makes it more evident to the reader that a null pointer is being used and not the integer value 0.
Java's null is more like C++0x's nullptr. NULL in C++ is just 0 and can end up resolving to int rather than a pointer like you'd want. Consider:
void f(int);
void f(char*);
...
f(NULL); // which f()?
C++0x has nullptr, which fixes that problem but it's still not going to be totally equivalent to Java's null. They're just different languages.
Oh, and another diff is that Java has no pointers (or so it says). In Java you can legitimately assign null to a reference, in C++ you can't do that without having already used an ill-formed construct. Admittedly, Java would be next to useless without this ability but it's definitely another important difference.
NULLis a preprocessor directive identifier, according to convention, those should be all caps.nullis a language litteral representing a constant value and should according to convention be all lower (just astrueorfalse).
0 being an int like other integers, sizeof(0) will yield 4 bytes.
sizeof(NULL) will yield 8 bytes. In binary system, it is 8x8=64 bits, all bits with 0.
Pointers have 8 bytes allocated against characters with 1 bytes and integers 4 bytes. Is 8 bytes the maximum bytes for any datatype? I believe so as NULL is set to 8 bytes apparently for that reason to take care NULL denotes 0 for all datatypes.
From the msdn page:
The "null statement" is an expression statement with the expression missing. It is useful when the syntax of the language calls for a statement but no expression evaluation. It consists of a semicolon.
Null statements are commonly used as placeholders in iteration statements or as statements on which to place labels at the end of compound statements or functions.
know more: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1zea45ac.aspx
And explain a typical use of it.
When you want to find the index of first occurrence of a certain character in a string
int a[50] = "lord of the rings";
int i;
for(i = 0; a[i] != 't'; i++)
;//null statement
//as no operation is required
A null statement is a statement that doesn't do anything, but exists for syntactical reasons.
while ((*s++ = *t++))
; /* null statement */
In this case the null statement provides the body of the while loop.
or (disclaimer: bad code)
if (condition1)
if (condition2)
dosomething();
else
; /* null statement */
else
dosomethingelse();
In this case the inner else and null statement keeps the outer else from binding to the inner if.
In C, NULL is a macro that expands either to 0 or (void*)0 (or something that has a similar effect).
In the first case, you can not differentiate between NULL and 0, because they are literally the same.
In the second case, your code will cause a compile error, because you can't compare an integer variable with a pointer.
First some background ...
The macros are
NULLwhich expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant; C11 §7.19 3
NULL typically is an integer constant 0 or (void*)0 or the like. It may have a different implementation or type - It could be ((int*) 0xDEADBEEF) as strange as that may be.
NULL might be type int. It might be type void * or something else. The type of NULL is not defined.
When the null pointer constant NULL is cast to any pointer, is is a null pointer. An integer 0 cast to a pointer is also a null pointer. A system could have many different (bit-wise) null pointers. They all compare equally to each other. They all compare unequally to any valid object/function. Recall this compare is done as pointers, not integers.
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. C11 §6.3.2.3 3
int x;
if (&x == NULL) ... // this is false
So after all that chapter and verse how to distinguish NULL from 0?
If the macro NULL is defined as an int 0 - it is game over - there is no difference between 0 and NULL.
If NULL is not an int, then code can use _Generic() to differentiate NULL and 0. This does not help OP's "Any change made can only be made within the function itself." requirement as that function accepts an int augment.
If NULL is an int that has a different bit-pattern than 0, then a simple memcmp() can differentiate.
I suspect the whole reason for this exercise is to realize there is no portable method to distinguish NULL from 0.