Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- From: Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:54:02 +0000 (UTC)
Keith Thompson <kst-u@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> of. The most straightforward way to comply with 6.5.2.3p5 is simply
> to use layout rules that always guarantee the same layout for any
> common initial subsequence.
Do you suppose that there is a particular reason the guarantee of
6.5.2.3p5 was not simply extended to all common initial subsequences?
> If you're really concerned about conformance, you can declare (and not
> bother to use) a union just to avoid the possibility, but I don't
> think it's worth the effort.
Admittedly I was playing one of the more pedantic of the reindeer games.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
- References:
- void * pointer convert problem.
- From: Eric J.Hu
- Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- From: Christopher Benson-Manica
- Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- From: Eric J.Hu
- Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- From: tmp123
- Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- From: Christopher Benson-Manica
- Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- From: nelu
- Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- From: Christopher Benson-Manica
- Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- From: Keith Thompson
- void * pointer convert problem.
- Prev by Date: Re: String reversing problem
- Next by Date: Re: String reversing problem
- Previous by thread: Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- Next by thread: Re: void * pointer convert problem.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|