🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45fgea$d8j@yage.tembel.org> shields@tembel.org (Michael
Shields) writes:

|> In article <45ef3f$n8u@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
|> Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
|> > What's interesting is that you can get the same effect with valid code
|> > that should generate the same object code as the invalid original.
|> > For example, instead of 
|> > 	((char*)src)++;
|> > you can write
|> > 	(*(char**)(&src))++;
|> > I don't claim this code is more readable, but you could encapsulate the
|> > ugliness in a macro. For example:
|> > 	#define increment_as(ptr, T) ((*(T*)(&ptr))++)
|> > 	increment_as(src, char*);

|> If it is always possible, why not just legalize the first syntax?

Because it fails miserably on machines where different types of
pointers have different representations.  I believe it was Henry
Spencer who said something about lying to the compiler...

The problem I think Steve Clamage was addressing is that there are an
awful lot of programmers out there who think that the whole world is
composed of Vaxes and Suns.  Their programs once worked on one of
these machines, and they expect everyone else to perpertuate their
errors.  Since they often have friends in purchasing, their
expectations may very well be met.
-- 
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung