Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #140035
| Subject | Re: compiling all c code |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| References | <cbbefd94-59bf-489e-84c6-2633c289f119@googlegroups.com> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <VG71E.72254$e75.36443@fx34.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2019-01-20 18:41 -0500 |
On 1/20/19 5:51 PM, fiziqs@gmail.com wrote: > Dear All, > > I tried to compile a bit of code from the original Unix source and ran into the following problem: > they defined a "generic pointer type" ptr (actually it is a typedef), and pointers are casted to this. Also ones for structs. > Now, gcc does not accept the -> for such pointers. > Is there some way (e.g., compiler option) to get around this, or the only way is to look up for all these what kind of structure they refer to, and change their type? > > Thanks a lot in advance. > Very ancient proto-C put all structs members into a single address space, and thus any (struct) pointer could be used to offset into a structure to get that member. This is no longer valid C. Unless you have a compiler that understands this ancient proto-c language as an option, you are going to need to fix the code. One option that might work is to gather all these struct definitions into a single anonymous union, and then you just need to make pointers that access any of these structures be pointers to that type of union. That might be a bit less work.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
compiling all c code fiziqs@gmail.com - 2019-01-20 14:51 -0800
Re: compiling all c code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-01-20 18:41 -0500
Re: compiling all c code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-01-20 23:42 +0000
Re: compiling all c code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-20 16:44 -0800
Re: compiling all c code fiziqs@gmail.com - 2019-01-21 02:36 -0800
Re: compiling [old] c code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-01-21 12:20 +0000
Re: compiling [old] c code fiziqs@gmail.com - 2019-01-21 04:58 -0800
Re: compiling [old] c code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-01-21 18:33 +0000
Re: compiling [old] c code fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-01-22 04:21 -0800
Re: compiling [old] c code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-01-22 16:46 +0000
Re: compiling [old] c code fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-01-22 10:35 -0800
Re: compiling [old] c code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-01-22 22:45 +0000
Re: compiling [old] c code fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-01-22 14:58 -0800
Re: compiling [old] c code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-01-23 02:12 +0000
Re: compiling [old] c code fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-01-23 00:59 -0800
Re: compiling [old] c code fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-01-22 03:34 -0800
Re: compiling [old] c code fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-01-22 04:08 -0800
Re: compiling all c code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-21 14:23 -0800
csiph-web