Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c |
| Subject | Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type |
| Date | 2013-01-04 23:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <akppc6Favm8U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <kc5v4n$ing$1@dont-email.me> |
On 04/01/2013 2:08 AM, Shao Miller wrote: ... > "A pointer to an object type may be converted to a pointer to a > different object type. If the resulting pointer is not correctly > aligned) for the referenced type, the behavior is undefined. What I don't like about this wording (both old and new) is that it talks about the alignment of the *resulting* pointer, even though the standard does not generally specify what the result of the conversion is (other than that it's a pointer that can be converted back; a few exceptions include conversions to char*, between pointers to a struct and to the type of its first member, etc.). Would it be wrong to say, instead, that the behaviour is undefined if the *original* pointer, the one before the conversion, is not correctly aligned for the type referenced by the type of the result? Or to say, separately, that if the original pointer satisfies the alignment requirements of some type, then the converted pointer satisfies them too? Or maybe even that the converted pointer points at the same byte in memory than the original pointer did (using some more formal wording)? I've seen claims that this follows from some other requirements of the standard (C99 at the time), but I never managed to find them.
Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 02:08 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-04 08:09 -0800
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 12:25 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2013-01-04 13:47 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 14:56 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2013-01-04 17:10 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 20:34 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2013-01-04 23:45 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-05 02:07 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-05 02:16 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-06 17:25 -0800
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2013-01-06 22:13 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 23:30 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2013-01-07 00:07 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 01:29 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 02:18 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2013-01-10 17:45 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-06 22:30 -0800
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 01:58 -0500
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-06 23:16 -0800
Re: C11 6.3.2.3p7 Referenced Type Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-06 22:02 -0800
csiph-web