Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Path | csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c |
| Subject | Re: Footnote in section on Address-Of Operator |
| Date | Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:48:40 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 25 |
| Message-ID | <86o7sx83uf.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <3aa216b0-365a-42b0-aceb-959cf5a1a747n@googlegroups.com> <87pmddi5e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Injection-Info | reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8ee213438f0e6ab517cae470e775d09b"; logging-data="532317"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eAmnCPCYm+ygO2u40XcM7STrbqS6Cswg=" |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:mAQvcPchfd+ylfuD25JvTJ+5zU4= sha1:rc0sUE5zvg/MHesLw3R+5NmRcfk= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.std.c:6457 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > JoJoModding <jojohostert@gmail.com> writes: > >> in the paragraph on address and indirection operators (6.5.3.2 in the >> C23 draft N3047), there is a footnote (footnote 117 in that draft), >> which says that >> >>> &*E is equivalent to E (even if E is a null pointer) > > This seems to be a case where a footnote might add confusion rather than > clarity. The normative text makes it clear that &*E can't be equivalent > to E in every way because &*E is not an lvalue. And &*E has type > constraints that E does not have. > >> This seems to imply that sizeof(&*E) == sizeof(E), which is unexpected >> if E is an array. > > There are much simpler examples if the apparent non-equivalence. If p > is a pointer object, p can be assigned to by &*p can't be. And due to > the clause about constraints. &*(void *)0 is a constraint violation, > but (void *)0 is obviously fine. What makes you say &*(void*)0 is a constraint violation? I don't see any constraints that are violated.
Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Footnote in section on Address-Of Operator JoJoModding <jojohostert@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 14:40 -0800
Re: Footnote in section on Address-Of Operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-11-24 00:05 +0000
Re: Footnote in section on Address-Of Operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-11-23 18:48 -0800
Re: Footnote in section on Address-Of Operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-11-24 13:26 +0000
csiph-web