Re: A portable stack in C

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: A portable stack in C
Date	2011-11-15 17:30 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<4EC2E822.20804@verizon.net> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <0.2750400f376f80733671.20111115123924GMT.87k471tv9f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <j9tpaq$lq0$1@speranza.aioe.org> <0.14403af903e96e9e0bb8.20111115153135GMT.8739dptnag.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ln1ut92jle.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <0.5da9481d0e3557b1de10.20111115211559GMT.87r519rss0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/15/2011 04:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> 
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>> jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> You will agree that *p is the same as p[0] isn't it? For ALL p?
>>>
>>> Kinda.  It's true in the sense that you get the same result when the
>>> result is defined, and that both are undefined if either one is
>>> undefined.  Are two "undefined behaviours" always "the same"?  A thread
>>> about that could run and run.
>>
>> And it's not true of p is a function pointer.
> 
> Surely both *p and p[0] are undefined in that case.

If p is a function pointer, 6.5.3.2p4 seem to define *p quite nicely.
6.3.2.1p4 means that in most cases, *p is exactly equivalent to p,
rendering it rather pointless, but not undefined.

Thread

A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-14 17:54 +0100
  Re: A portable stack in C Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-11-14 20:55 -0800
    Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 09:22 +0100
      Re: A portable stack in C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-11-15 09:00 +0000
        Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 11:26 +0100
      Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-15 10:05 +0000
        Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 11:25 +0100
          Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-15 11:08 +0000
          Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 11:45 +0000
            Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 12:57 +0100
              Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 12:39 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 14:26 +0100
                Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 15:31 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 12:53 -0800
                Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 21:15 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 14:29 -0800
                Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 22:59 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-15 17:30 -0500
                Re: A portable stack in C Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-15 22:33 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 15:07 -0800
                Re: A portable stack in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 22:37 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 23:01 +0000
              Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-15 18:45 +0000
            Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 12:41 -0800
          Re: A portable stack in C Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-11-15 23:07 -0500
            Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 20:18 -0800
            Re: A portable stack in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-15 22:53 -0600
              Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-16 12:00 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-11-16 16:08 +0000
              Re: A portable stack in C David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-01-19 02:41 -0500
      Re: A portable stack in C Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-11-15 11:21 -0500
      Re: A portable stack in C Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-11-15 17:53 -0800
    Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-15 19:21 +0100
      Re: A portable stack in C Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-11-15 17:53 -0800
        Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-18 08:13 +0100
  Re: A portable stack in C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 10:14 +0000
    Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-15 19:20 +0100
  Re: A portable stack in C Acid Washed China Blue Jeans <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-15 08:13 -0800
  Re: A portable stack in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-15 16:27 +0000
    Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-15 19:21 +0100
    Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 13:19 -0800
  Re: A portable stack in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-11-17 15:45 +0000
    Re: A portable stack in C John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-17 15:56 +0000
    Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-17 18:02 +0100
      Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-17 17:35 +0000
        Re: A portable stack in C Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-17 18:45 +0100
        Re: A portable stack in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-18 00:27 -0800
          Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-18 10:40 +0100
            Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-20 07:22 +0100
            Re: A portable stack in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-21 00:38 -0800
              Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 03:44 -0600
                Re: A portable stack in C Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-21 13:00 +0200
                Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 06:07 -0600
              Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 03:50 -0600
              Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 07:48 -0600
              Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-21 20:11 +0100
          Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-18 12:47 +0000
          Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-18 23:31 -0600
      Re: A portable stack in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-11-18 14:45 +0000
        Re: A portable stack in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-18 10:14 -0500
        Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-18 12:20 -0800
          Re: A portable stack in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 17:23 +0000
            Re: A portable stack in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-19 18:49 +0000
              Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-19 22:41 -0600
              Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-20 07:27 +0100
                Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-21 20:12 +0100
            Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-20 07:50 +0100
          Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 01:24 -0600
            Re: A portable stack in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-21 05:22 -0800
              Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-22 03:31 -0600
  Re: A portable stack in C 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-21 06:38 -0800

csiph-web