Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #95229

Re: pointers

Show key headers only | View raw

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 24/10/2016 01:27, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> & & is sometimes allowed like this:
>>>
>>>   int **pointer;
>>>
>>>   & & &**pointer;
>>>
>>> where the & & and ** cancel out. But gcc doesn't like it so it wouldn't
>>> be wise to depend on it.
>>
>> No, that's not allowed (more precisely, it's still a constraint
>> violation).  N1570 6.5.3.2 says that &*foo is equivalent to foo
>> "except that the constraints on the operators still apply and the
>> result is not an lvalue".
>>
>>>                          For gcc, it needs to be written like this:
>>>
>>>   &*&*&pointer;
>>>
>>> with the & and * interleaved.
>>
>> Because that's a different expression, which is not a constraint
>> violation.  The same applies to any conforming compiler.
>
> The behaviour of the non-conforming compilers seems fine to be. Each & 
> and * pair cancel each other out, as seems to happen with the conforming 
> gcc.

What compiler doesn't diagnose `& & &**pointer`?

The standard clearly makes `& &pointer` a constraint violation.
Part of a compiler's job is to diagnose errors.  A compiler that
fails to diagnose this particular error is not doing its job.
One result of this failure would be that a programmer might use
such a construct and not find out that it's invalid until the code
is ported to a conforming compiler.

> Should it matter then in which order the & and * appear? By the time you 
> get to the actual term, you've either got more & than *, or more * than 
> &, or they cancel each other out completely.

The fact is that it *does* matter.  The standard says that & and *
cancel out in certain narrowly defined circumstances.  I see no
advantage in allowing them to cancel out in any cases beyond those
defined by the standard.

Is there some reason you'd want to write `& & &**pointer`, or that you
care how the compiler handles it?

> (Odd that it's the conforming gcc that allows && (without the space) as 
> address-of on labels. It seems to pick and choose what it wants to 
> conform to! But it does show that && (binary and) and && (unary 
> address-of-label) can co-exist.)

I see nothing odd about it.  gcc's unary `&&` operator is an extension.
In standard C, `&&label` is a syntax error, and any conforming compiler
(including `gcc -std=c11 -pedantic`) must diagnose it.  Of course gcc is
not a fully conforming compiler by default.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

pointers asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 08:11 -0700
  Re: pointers Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-23 16:26 +0100
    Re: pointers asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 10:35 -0700
      Re: pointers Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-23 17:47 +0000
        Re: pointers asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-10-25 12:55 -0700
      Re: pointers "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-23 13:58 -0400
        Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 00:55 +0100
          Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-23 17:27 -0700
            Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 11:53 +0100
              Re: pointers supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-24 07:29 -0700
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 08:55 -0700
                Re: pointers Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-24 14:02 -0700
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 14:42 -0700
                Re: pointers Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-25 08:56 -0700
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 12:17 -0700
                Re: pointers Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-26 06:37 -0700
              Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 08:49 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 17:25 +0100
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 09:52 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 18:15 +0100
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 12:20 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 20:58 +0100
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 13:16 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 23:53 +0100
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 13:38 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-25 23:06 +0100
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 15:39 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 00:26 +0100
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 16:44 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 01:02 +0100
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 17:35 -0700
                Re: pointers Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-26 06:27 +0000
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 12:47 +0100
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-26 09:05 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 18:46 +0100
                Re: pointers supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-26 11:44 -0700
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 20:12 +0100
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 20:30 +0100
                Re: pointers supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-26 13:02 -0700
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-26 11:52 -0700
                Re: pointers Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-26 19:11 +0000
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 21:25 +0100
                Re: pointers "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-25 18:56 -0400
                Re: pointers "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-25 19:12 -0400
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 16:31 -0700
                Re: pointers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-24 21:36 +0100
                Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-25 16:54 +0100
                Re: pointers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-25 19:09 +0100
                Re: pointers supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-24 11:33 -0700
                Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 12:22 -0700
          Re: pointers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-24 10:23 -0400
  Re: pointers "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-23 12:31 -0400
    Re: pointers Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-23 17:38 +0100
  Re: pointers Lorinczy Zsigmond <zsiga@nospam.for.me> - 2016-10-24 14:02 +0200
  Re: pointers John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 13:34 -0700

csiph-web