In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes:
>: Likewise if the first member were a more complex data type, but
>: nevertheless the same between the different structures.
>:
>: It seems safe to me, but I can't explain why :-)
>
>It is obfuscated 'C', but it is safe. The standard requires that
>(void *) &foo == (void *) &foo->s and that if s were a complex
>structure that it be laid out the same in all instances of s. So I
>think that it is "safe" to do that.
Safe, but stupid, since type-safety is lost when doing so.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
