Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!uvaarpa!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: (char *) and (void *)
Message-ID: <455@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 87 21:43:00 GMT
References: <6829@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Data General, RTP NC.
Lines: 23

> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
> Pointers to the same object are now guaranteed to compare equal.
> All types of null pointer compare equal.  (char *) and (void *)
> have the same representation.

What was the rationale for restricting implementors in this way?  It
seems a totally useless restriction, and has potentially cripling effect
on debugging-enhanced implementations.

A better refinement of pointer format would be to require that the size
of an object of pointer-to-structure type must be knowable without
knowing the contents of the structure.  (This may be implied by other
rules, but I didn't see this clearly spelled out anywhere.  On the other
hand, this restriction may NOT be implied, and may not even be wanted.
Comments?)

--
I cain't git a long little doggie,
I cain't even git one that's small...
I cain't git a long little doggie,
I cain't git a doggie ay-tall.
                                        --- Yosemite Sam
-- 
Wayne Throop      !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw