🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec18.202539.22728@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
> >"the result depends on the relative positions ... in the address
> >space."  What does this mean?  
> 
> 	This means that the committee has committed a grave error.
> Too many Unix people. The ARM also commits this error in
> assuming the existence of *an* address space. 

Implicit smiley detected :-)  It actually means that the committee adopted
the ARM's text as its base document and as the foundation of its working
paper.  The committee has not yet addressed the shortcomings of the ARM's
5.9 and 5.10.

In article <18188@autodesk.COM> larsn@Autodesk.COM (Lars Nyman) writes:

> ARM specifies what a comparison of two pointers to objects should return
> IF:
> 	- the objects are the same
> 	- the objects are non-static members of same object
> 	- the objects are elements of the same array
> 
> Otherwise, the pointer comparison is implementation dependent.
>
> 
> So, if I have pointers to two different objects the result of comparing
> them is implementation defined !?!
> Thus, I cannot even trust that a '!=' test will return 1 for two objects
> that are not the same !
> 
> This must surely be wrong... can somebody, please, correct me and explain
> what I'm overlooking.

This problem has the same explanation.  5.9 and 5.10 need work
before they're suitable for a standard.  I avoid them when trying
to understand the meaning of pointer comparison, and get out my C standard.
--
Prescott K. Turner, Jr.
Liant Software Corp. (developers of LPI languages)
959 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701 USA    (508) 872-8700
UUCP: uunet!lpi!pkt                          Internet: pkt@lpi.liant.com