Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Sort char array
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 06:04:30 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <86r238hoo1.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <STKlF.8551$oU2.5908@fx21.iad> <20191008022725.36fbd95aa45ba185290e5e11@gmail.com> <1q_mF.841756$Zy3.585129@fx33.am4> <20191009020207.b533aa1c6d95f44eb314ffc1@gmail.com> <qnkd2j$hpb$1@dont-email.me> <5alnF.1041354$WI2.353384@fx34.am4> <qnknn7$hs7$1@dont-email.me> <dd99aeb0-e773-4bf8-8244-3b2564f992c1@googlegroups.com> <qnl92t$ns$1@dont-email.me> <20191010003208.ff29e87d2de1e17c50f96c74@gmail.com> <qnmqp7$n5p$1@dont-email.me> <ln1rvkv6ob.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <cdd64a85-669f-464b-a583-1682f7259ffe@googlegroups.com> <20191013213743.84c68aaf89bc1cd6b995db5b@gmail.com> <WrKoF.2800373$dw4.2654846@fx12.am4> <20191014005637.56bd13f20bceb6f3c4233b09@gmail.com> <oKXoF.1030016$Nw3.947253@fx40.am4> <20191014133326.cc63c82d5be1aad83f49d6ff@g{oogle}mail.com> <e0gqF.1212939$_l5.234178@fx32.am4> <e6a5a83c-2145-4af0-a719-66bae5091e26@googlegroups.com> <a3af2da2-2b38-4744-bf62-6c2f19896f6f@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3a1975e3f550932398983d5ed513e7ac"; logging-data="21441"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19T8tx+UhUJtPa85GFC8Osr/SV2J4ylG5o="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eMqtn6HqT/ywTGGpS5unY6mffo4= sha1:wQzkZEo+oyEsbjqXlTcyuKyuxvU=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:147074

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, 18 October 2019 13:56:43 UTC+1, mark....@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 18 October 2019 10:57:40 UTC+1, Bart  wrote:
>>
>>> ... Here is the C equivalent of a bug
>>> I found today:
>>>
>>>       char *dataptr;
>>>       int   *p;
>>>
>>>       p = (int*)dataptr;
>>>       *p = x;
>>>       dataptr += 4;
>>
>> dataptr += sizeof(int); // fixed and future-proof
>>
>> Which is how it should have been coded in the first place.
>>
>> I'm not sure what your point is.
>
> Not necessarily, no.  This comes down to Tim Rentsch's point about
> data and representation.

No, it doesn't.  Please don't speak for me.  You didn't understand
the point I was making before, and obviously you still don't.