Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cheviot.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cheviot!lindsay From: lindsay@cheviot.UUCP (Lindsay F. Marshall) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: pointers to structs Message-ID: <208@cheviot.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 04:29:39 EST Article-I.D.: cheviot.208 Posted: Wed Jan 9 04:29:39 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 07:35:21 EST Reply-To: lindsay@cheviot.UUCP (Lindsay F. Marshall) Organization: U. of Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K. Lines: 19 <> What is the position as regards a) portability, and b) the "standard" on using the following feature of C : . . struct STYPE *t; . . where the size and shape of STYPE have not been defined and the elements of t are NEVER accessed - the normal use is that t is assigned a value from a function call and is then passed to another function, the contents of the structure are not releveant. This certainly works on the compilers I have tried it on, but is it "correct"?? (If it is, it's a tremendous way of reducing the number of include files one needs!!) Please mail replies if possible, as not all the news has the strength to reach this far! I will summarise if it is worth it. Lindsay F. Marshall - Computing Lab., U of Newcastle upon Tyne ARPA : lindsay%cheviot%newcastle.mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA UUCP :!ukc!cheviot!lindsay