On Tuesday 04 December 2007 04:08:21 pm M. Warner Losh wrote: > 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...
Bah, brain-o on my part, sorry. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
