Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: A portable stack in C |
| Date | 2011-11-15 22:33 +0000 |
| Organization | Stack Usenet News Service |
| Message-ID | <slrnjc5q62.1tp6.willem@toad.stack.nl> (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> |
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.
Well, technically what you just said is meaningless, you see,
'undefined' is not a value that a variable can take in C.
Pedantically, it is 'undefined behaviour' to access both these values.
The behaviour need not be the same for those two cases. But then again, it
need not be the same when you compare the first case with the first case.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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