Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:11:44 +1000
From:	Fergus Henderson <fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT OZ DOT AU>
To:	Emanuele ALIBERTI <ealiberti AT hotmail DOT com>
Cc:	rbresner AT olf DOT com, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Re: More DLL fun! [fwd: ]
Message-ID:	<19990716151143.A4698@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
References:	<19990715224321 DOT 24409 DOT qmail AT hotmail DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To:	<19990715224321.24409.qmail@hotmail.com>; from Emanuele ALIBERTI on Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 03:43:20PM -0700

On 15-Jul-1999, Emanuele ALIBERTI <ealiberti AT hotmail DOT com> wrote:
> > > I am trying to compare 2 pointers to functions.
> > > All I am looking for is if they match or not.
> > > The pointers are to a function.
> > > The function is in a DLL, and the first place to get the
> > > function pointer is in an exe.
> > > The following is kind of a code sample (kind of but not really).
> 
> The behaviour is correct.

That depends on what you mean by "correct"!
That behaviour described does not conform to the ANSI/ISO C standard.

It may well be that this behaviour is what the Microsoft compiler does.
However, I think you should choose your words more carefully, rather
than just saying that the behaviour is "correct".  For example, if
that is indeed what the MS compiler does, then you could instead describe
this behaviour as being "bug-for-bug compatible with the MS compiler" ;-)

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh AT 128 DOT 250 DOT 37 DOT 3        |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -