Article View: comp.lang.c.moderated
Article #2558Re: (double **) void **
From: Chris Torek
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 03:46
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 03:46
18 lines
1137 bytes
1137 bytes
I hate to have to follow up to my own article, but... In article <4kbebt$eiv@solutions.solon.com> I wrote: >> double **m = (double **) [expression of type `void **'] >The effect of this conversion is undefined. ... the effect >is implementation-defined. Clearly the effect cannot be both undefined and implementation- defined! I think (from 3.3.4) that `undefined' is correct here (since there is no known relationship between the alignment constraints for `void **' and `double **'). In any case, however, portable code must not depend on the result. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc El Cerrito, CA Domain: torek@bsdi.com +1 510 234 3167
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4kcmiq$ovp@solutions.solon.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!solon.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<4kbebt$eiv@solutions.solon.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!solon.com!not-for-mail From: Chris Torek <torek@elf.bsdi.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c.moderated Subject: Re: (double **) void ** Date: 8 Apr 1996 22:46:34 -0500 Organization: Berkeley Software Design, Inc. Sender: clc@solutions.solon.com Approved: clc@solutions.solon.com Message-ID: <4kcmiq$ovp@solutions.solon.com> References: <4kbebt$eiv@solutions.solon.com> Reply-To: torek@bsdi.com NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com