Boost logo

Boost :

From: Bo Persson (bo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-05-23 06:53:18


On 2022-05-22 at 23:58, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
> On 5/22/22 18:35, Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> I did however not know that GCC doesn't warn on NULL. Interesting
>>> compromise, even though I don't quite see the point of it.
>>>
>>> Clang does warn on NULL, however.
>>
>> I do see the point of it now. Under GCC the warning is pragmatically
>> intended to catch actual mistakes such as mistyping
>>
>> while( *p != 0 )
>>
>> as
>>
>> while( p != 0 )
>>
>> so the warning only triggers on the actual 0, and is enabled under
>> C++03 as well.
>>
>> Clang, and the various static analysis tools such as the MS analyzer,
>> enforce a stylistic preference for nullptr, so they warn on both 0
>> and NULL, but Clang doesn't warn in C++03 mode.
>>
>> Either way, I'm not looking forward to adding a bunch of lines to
>> suppress the various warnings, instead of just telling the PR author
>> to use BOOST_NULLPTR instead of nullptr.
>
> We already have NULL as the portable macro, so I would still prefer it
> to a Boost invention.
>
> Again, that some compilers warn on NULL is a compiler bug and should be
> treated as such, IMO. Compiler vendors should keep their stylistic
> preferences to themselves, especially when they are impossible to follow
> (in C++03 case). The use of NULL as a null pointer is perfectly valid,
> in the sense of both formal C++ compliance and code readability.
>

This happens when you write the code for C++03, but compile it for C++20.

I think it is pretty nice of the compiler to hint that things have
changed in the last 20 years.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk