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}.