Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:08:31 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portability sanity check Message-ID: <20010221110831.A93816@hamlet.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <200102211656.f1LGu8W97533@harmony.village.org>; from imp@harmony.village.org on Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:56:08AM -0700 References: <20010221102516.B93525@hamlet.nectar.com> <20010221094228.A93221@hamlet.nectar.com> <200102211553.f1LFrvs07412@billy-club.village.org> <20010221102516.B93525@hamlet.nectar.com> <200102211656.f1LGu8W97533@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:56:08AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > There is some verbage in the structure layout part of the standard > that makes this a logical conclusion. > > However, it is overly tricky code. But then again to do the generic > sort of thing you want to do, you have to resort to C macros, or other > gross things to make it generic. The question becomes how do you do > that in the least gross way... Someone will say ``Use C++'' here. Then I will ignite a copy of `The Annotated C++ Reference Manual' and hit them with it. I think using unions is actually out of the question if you want to be able to allow new `types' after compile time. When you say ``resort to C macros,'' do you mean macros to hide the `type punning', or do you have something else in mind? Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org 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?20010221110831.A93816>