🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14235@ksr.com>, jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
|> restriction or requirement is met.  For example, it was claimed at one time
|> that, although the Standard lists two and only two kinds of null pointer
|> constants (an integral constant zero or an integral constant zero cast to
|> void *), a compiler could make NULL expand into (char *)0, because a strictly
|> conforming program couldn't tell the difference.  Doug Gwyn (I think) then
|> demonstrated one that could, taking advantage of the # operator.

I believe that was me, not Doug. 

|> What the standard says about alignment of things in a structure is:
|> 
|> 	"Each non-bit-field member of a structure or union object is aligned
|> 	in an implementation-defined manner appropriate to its type."
|> 
|> An implementation must document its strategy, but
|> 
|> 	"For all types, structure members are aligned on 16-byte boundaries,
|> 	except on Fat Tuesday and Christmas, when for all types, structure
|> 	members are aligned on 64-byte boundaries for good luck."

I guess we've exhausted all creative examples of undefined behavior, so
we're moving on to implementation-defined behavior :). I love it!

|> 
|> is perfectly acceptable, even if everything is addressable on arbitrary byte
|> boundaries.  If you would quibble with whether that is "appropriate", either
|> write a SCP that exposes the error, or chalk it up to "quality of
|> implementation".

I would agree with that.

-Chris

-- 
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com