The standard doesn't say dereferencing a null pointer is invalid. The fact that it gives it as an example of undefined behaviour is a defect in the standard. In

The standard doesn't say dereferencing a null pointer is invalid. The fact that it gives it as an example of undefined behaviour is a defect in the standard. In the discussion on core language issue #232, the intent has been explicitly stated: > Notes from the October 2003 meeting: > ... > We agreed that the approach in the standard seems okay: p = 0; *p; is not inherently an error. An lvalue-to-rvalue conversion would give it undefined behavior. http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#232 http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#232 WRT your edit: no, that says dereferencing a null pointer and binding a reference to the result produces undefined behaviour. That agrees with what I was saying. "which" refers to the whole of "to bind it to the "object" obtained by dereferencing a null pointer", not just to "dereferencing a null pointer".