Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!think!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!sei.cmu.edu!firth
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Structure pointer question
Message-ID: <5925@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 17 Jun 88 19:45:44 GMT
References: <361@teletron.uucp> <8074@brl-smoke.arpa> <4524@haddock.isc.com>  <4606@haddock.ISC.COM>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (Robert Firth)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
Lines: 10

In article <4606@haddock.ISC.COM> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:

>It's not a pointer to a completely unspecified type.  It's a pointer to a
>struct with unknown contents.  (This matters.  Although pointer-to-char and
>pointer-to-int might have different internal representations, pointer-to-
>-struct-foo and pointer-to-struct-bar cannot%.)

This makes no sense to me.  Surely a pointer to a struct whose only
component is of type X will use the same representation as a pointer
to a plain X.  Hence if *X and *Y differ, so will *struct{X} and
*struct{Y}.