INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR Pancho.Jones@proton.me   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  4c24473d   
   REPLY:  14a79d48   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   On 29/08/2024 18:57, John Aldridge wrote:   
   > In article <20240829102839.5bb67af25e568ebabc65ede6@eircom.net>,   
   > steveo@eircom.net says...   
   >>   
   >> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:32:49 +0100   
   >> Richard Kettlewell  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> I don?t think I?d fault either decision though the fact that we?ve ended   
   >>> up with two conventions does make writing/maintaining portable code a   
   >>> bit more annoying,   
   >>   
   >> 	Portable code should only rely on the standards not   
   >> implementations, some very weird possibilities are legal within the   
   >> standard.   
   >   
   > Heh, yes. I worked for several years on a machine where a null pointer   
   > wasn't all bits zero, and where char* was a different size to any other   
   > pointer.   
   >   
      
   The follow question to the non-zero NULL pointer, is what OS didn't   
   protect memory address 0, so you could dereference a NULL pointer   
   without a hardware exception?   
      
   I never saw it myself, but we were always cautioned that such an OS   
   existed. Maybe it was an old wives' tale?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 124/5016 129/305 153/757   
   SEEN-BY: 153/7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930 220/70 221/1 6 360 226/17   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 100 227/114 229/110 111 114 200 206 300 317 400 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120 266/512 267/800 282/1038   
   SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364   
   SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 3 100   
   SEEN-BY: 770/330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042 5058/104 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426