Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #1213Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
From: Andrew Koenig
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:25
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:25
15 lines
1259 bytes
1259 bytes
In article <1992Dec11.231131.10956@microsoft.com> jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes: > So that taking the address of a nested function in different scopes > causes differing trampolines to be created, and differing pointers returned? It shouldn't need to do that. At most one trampoline is ever necessary for a given nested function during its lifetime, namely the one that binds the lexically surrounding context that was current when the block containing the definition of that function was entered. Moreover, that trampoline address is unique until the corresponding function has gone out of scope, at which point the address is moot. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@europa.att.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<24392@alice.att.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!arkReferences:
<9234423.15066@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Dec10.121200.18889@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <9234601.10277@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Dec11.231131.10956@microsoft.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!ark From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons Message-ID: <24392@alice.att.com> Date: 12 Dec 92 06:25:32 GMT Article-I.D.: alice.24392 References: <9234423.15066@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Dec10.121200.18889@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <9234601.10277@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Dec11.231131.10956@microsoft.com> Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP () Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ Lines: 15