Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:28:31 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portability sanity check Message-ID: <2210.982772911@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:22:00 CST." <20010221102200.A93525@hamlet.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010221102200.A93525@hamlet.nectar.com>, "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes: >On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <200102211553.f1LFrvs07412@billy-club.village.org>, Warner Losh writes: >> >In message <20010221094228.A93221@hamlet.nectar.com> "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes: >> >: Likewise if the first member were a more complex data type, but >> >: nevertheless the same between the different structures. >> >: >> >: It seems safe to me, but I can't explain why :-) >> > >> >It is obfuscated 'C', but it is safe. The standard requires that >> >(void *) &foo == (void *) &foo->s and that if s were a complex >> >structure that it be laid out the same in all instances of s. So I >> >think that it is "safe" to do that. >> >> Safe, but stupid, since type-safety is lost when doing so. > >Type-safety is a cruch for the weak-minded. As an old assembler programmer I couldn't agree more, but in a project like FreeBSD we have to realize that not everybody is that. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2210.982772911>