Message-ID: <3AC23F6D.2070407@ujf-grenoble.fr>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:45:49 +0200
From: Maurice Lombardi <Maurice DOT Lombardi AT ujf-grenoble DOT fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01
X-Accept-Language: fr,it,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
CC: Jack Klein <jackklein AT spamcop DOT net>
Subject: Re: is this a bug?
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010327112108 DOT 21272A-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Jack Klein wrote:
> 
> 
>>> It works, and not by accident.  But you are right: it's bad C.
>> 
>> No, there is no requirement that a pointer to an array of chars has
>> the same representation as a pointer to char, just as there is no
>> requirement for pointer to any different scalar types to have the same
>> representation, with the exception of pointer to char and pointer to
>> void.
> 
> 
> Well, if this is the accident you had in mind, then I agree.  But on any 
> machine whose representation of pointers to all objects is identical, the 
> code in question will work.

What about "fat pointers" ?
I have read somewhere that they are in discussion for future C

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-05/msg00073.html

Maurice

-- 
        Maurice Lombardi
Laboratoire de  Spectrometrie Physique,
Universite Joseph Fourier de Grenoble, BP87
38402 Saint Martin d'Heres Cedex     FRANCE
Tel: 33 (0)4 76 51 47 51
Fax: 33 (0)4 76 51 45 44
mailto:Maurice DOT Lombardi AT ujf-grenoble DOT fr