In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Tuesday 04 December 2007, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 04:57:33PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
: > > On Monday 03 December 2007 10:24:52 am Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
: > > > John Birrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > > > > Log:
: > > > > Fix strict alias warnings.
: > > >
: > > > A much simpler solution (relative to the previous revision):
: > > >
: > > > @@ -131,10 +131,10 @@
: > > > sum += oddbyte;
: > > > }
: > > > /* "Pseudo-header" data */
: > > > - ptr = (u_short *) & (pip->ip_dst);
: > > > + ptr = (void *)&pip->ip_dst;
: > > > sum += *ptr++;
: > > > sum += *ptr;
: > > > - ptr = (u_short *) & (pip->ip_src);
: > > > + ptr = (void *)&pip->ip_src;
: > > > sum += *ptr++;
: > > > sum += *ptr;
: > > > sum += htons((u_short) ntcp);
: > >
: > > *ptr++ would choke since pointer arith on (void *) is undefined
: > > AFAIK.
: >
: > I've been under impression that ++ on void * whould simply increase it
: > by one.
:
: wasn't that the reason why caddr_t exists? i.e. pointer arithmetic on
: void * is bad, but on caddr_t it's kinda okay.
Let's go look at the original code:
u_short *ptr;
and restate your objections...
Warner
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
