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>
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

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.