> the C/C++ standards require that zero is not a valid address for any object. So, I don't think there's a problem with the architecture you describe. IIRC it'

> the C/C++ standards require that zero is not a valid address for any object. So, I don't think there's a problem with the architecture you describe. IIRC it's a bit more complicated than that...? Isn't it more along the lines that no object may occupy the NULL/nullptr 'address' and that 0 (literal) in a pointer context must be interpreted as NULL/nullptr? IIRC it doesn't specifically say anything about the address 0x00000000 (add bits to taste).