🚀 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?

Although legal it does not necessarily work as intended!  Suppose I have
a pointer to int on a machine where int and char pointers have
different format, what does:
	(*(char**)(&src))++;
do?  For instance, on the Cray the resulting value is the same as the
value before the operation.
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl