llvm dev - Aug 2011 - [LLVMdev] Style question: NULL or 0?

Hi, LLVM. I have a question I'd like to get put into the official style
guidelines: do we prefer NULL or 0 for C++ objects? I've seen both
throughout the code.

Personally I prefer NULL, since it establishes that something is a pointer and
not an integer (or integer-constructed object, but thankfully we avoid implicit
conversions in LLVM/Clang). But I think I read somewhere that 0 is more
C++esque. (And C++11 nullptr's not available yet, of course.)


Similarly, when testing for the null pointer, is it better to use:
1. (x) and (!x)
2. (x) and (x == NULL)  // or 0
3. (x != NULL) and (x == NULL)
4. (NULL != x) and (NULL == x)
5. ...some other combination or something I haven't thought of

I don't care about this one as much. Still, in this case I think the first
is fairly standard, though the second does make the explicit test for NULL stand
out a little more (fewer copy/paste errors, perhaps?). IMO (3) and (4) are
overkill.


Thoughts?
Jordy

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jordy Rose <jediknil at belkadan.com>
wrote:
>  But I think I read somewhere that 0 is more C++esque.
I believe Stroustrup espoused this at one point (perhaps even on his
website) on the basis that using NULL gives you a false sense of
security - which isn't entirely true now that compilers (GCC & clang
presumably) will warn you about using NULL in non-pointer contexts.
> (And C++11 nullptr's not available yet, of course.)
My 2c is that this is a good reason to use NULL over 0 - it'll be way
easier to s/NULL/nullptr/ when upgrading to C++11 in the future than
it'll be to hunt down all those 0s used as pointers. Though I suppose
we can always enhance the compiler to warn about 0 used in pointer
contexts in C++11...

Hmm, we could do that today - hmm, is that something we should do? I
think it'd be rather neat/helpful - it could have a fixup & all that.
> 1. (x) and (!x)
This is my usual approach/preference.

Then you can also do things like:

if (T *x = foo())
  ...

> using NULL gives you a false sense of security - which isn't entirely
> true now that compilers (GCC & clang
> presumably) will warn you about using NULL in non-pointer contexts.
Hmm, nope, can't seem to find that warning in clang - gcc gives it though:

foo.cpp:4:11: warning: converting to non-pointer type "int" from NULL

On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Jordy Rose wrote:
> Hi, LLVM. I have a question I'd like to get put into the official style
guidelines: do we prefer NULL or 0 for C++ objects? I've seen both
throughout the code.
> 
> Personally I prefer NULL, since it establishes that something is a pointer
and not an integer (or integer-constructed object, but thankfully we avoid
implicit conversions in LLVM/Clang). But I think I read somewhere that 0 is more
C++esque. (And C++11 nullptr's not available yet, of course.)
> 
> 
> Similarly, when testing for the null pointer, is it better to use:
> 1. (x) and (!x)
> 2. (x) and (x == NULL)  // or 0
> 3. (x != NULL) and (x == NULL)
> 4. (NULL != x) and (NULL == x)
> 5. ...some other combination or something I haven't thought of
> 
> I don't care about this one as much. Still, in this case I think the
first is fairly standard, though the second does make the explicit test for NULL
stand out a little more (fewer copy/paste errors, perhaps?). IMO (3) and (4) are
overkill.

I use #4 most of the time.
Rationale:
* Make it explicit
* Constant on the left hand side.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Idio Software   <mailto:mclow.lists at gmail.com>

A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly
moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
        -- Yu Suzuki

On Aug 17, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Jordy Rose wrote:
> 
>> Hi, LLVM. I have a question I'd like to get put into the official
style guidelines: do we prefer NULL or 0 for C++ objects? I've seen both
throughout the code.
>> 
>> Personally I prefer NULL, since it establishes that something is a
pointer and not an integer (or integer-constructed object, but thankfully we
avoid implicit conversions in LLVM/Clang). But I think I read somewhere that 0
is more C++esque. (And C++11 nullptr's not available yet, of course.)
>> 
>> 
>> Similarly, when testing for the null pointer, is it better to use:
>> 1. (x) and (!x)
>> 2. (x) and (x == NULL)  // or 0
>> 3. (x != NULL) and (x == NULL)
>> 4. (NULL != x) and (NULL == x)
>> 5. ...some other combination or something I haven't thought of
>> 
>> I don't care about this one as much. Still, in this case I think
the first is fairly standard, though the second does make the explicit test for
NULL stand out a little more (fewer copy/paste errors, perhaps?). IMO (3) and
(4) are overkill.
> 
> 
> I use #4 most of the time.
> Rationale:
> * Make it explicit
> * Constant on the left hand side.
Please don't do this in LLVM code.  Unless you're the terminator of a
varargs call, I'd prefer to use 0 instead of NULL, and definitely constants
on right hand sides of comparisons.

-Chris