Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utah-gr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!utah-cs!utah-gr!thomas
From: thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: SIZEOF
Message-ID: <1310@utah-gr.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jan-85 17:10:47 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-gr.1310
Posted: Sat Jan 19 17:10:47 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 02:46:21 EST
References: <7527@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas)
Organization: Univ of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <7527@brl-tgr.ARPA> cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA writes:
>
> K&R page 192 first paragraph:
>
>   "The compilers currently allow a pointer to be assigned to an integer,
		   *********
>an integer to a pointer, and a pointer to a pointer of another type.
>THE ASSIGNMENT IS A PURE COPY OPERATION, WITH NO CONVERSION. This usage is
							      **** ***** **
>nonportable, and may produce pointers which cause addressing exceptions
 ***********
>
>This says to me that the sizes must be the same. Changing the size is
>a conversion in my eye. 

Note the words I have underlined above.  Nowhere in this paragraph does
it say that this is a feature which a C compiler MUST have, only that
this is a feature of CURRENT compilers.

-- 
=Spencer
	({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA)
		<<< Silly quote of the week >>>