Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!necntc!encore!linus!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: structure element offsets Message-ID: <588@mcgill-vision.UUCP> Date: Sun, 21-Dec-86 03:34:24 EST Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.588 Posted: Sun Dec 21 03:34:24 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Dec-86 18:42:02 EST References: <1096@spice.cs.cmu.edu> <7377@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: McGill University, Montreal Lines: 24 In article <7377@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > Or perhaps you were thinking of (type *)(long)x == x ? That would > make me nervous but it is technically valid. Is it? I seem to remember something in K&R to this effect: A pointer may be converted to any integral type large enough to hold it. This does not guarantee that there *is* any integral type large enough to hold a pointer (any pointer). On the other hand, they continue Whether an int or long is required is machine dependent. thereby implying that at least one of (int,long) will be sufficient. But they don't come right out and *say* so, do they? Do H&S or X3J11 say anything about this? der Mouse USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse ARPAnet: think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse@harvard.harvard.edu