| ??? 01/10/11 08:28 Read: times |
#180491 - legality of indexing NULL pointer Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I am not sure about the "legal" status of indexing a NULL pointer (which is what you get when you cast 0 to a pointer). This is the result of the "relaxed" nature of C - as there is no dedicated "nil" pointer, pointer with value 0 has a special status.
You should consider using either a different "starting" pointer, or maybe better use the native absolute addressing through keyword __at (see chapter 3.6 of the Manual). That SDCC should not throw a FATAL Internal error on this is another issue; but I see that you've already submitted a bug report to the SDCC tracker. JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| sdcc internal error / C syntax | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| legality of indexing NULL pointer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bug | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version revisited | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thank you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fixed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no snapshot | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| works | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 0 is special - but so is NULL. indexing around NULL is bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No guarantee that a NULL pointer points to any memory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I know :-( | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use of __at ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What is "that way"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the antique version.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| XBYTE macro | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Okay, then the following definition... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: David's remarks about volatility | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Close, but no cigar | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Avoid the 'volatile' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| instead of offsetting... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dereferencing a '_REG | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use of __at ? [ed] | 01/01/70 00:00 |