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 >>>