Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "falk at debian dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | ------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-14 15:37
> -------
> | (In reply to comment #7)
> |
> | > I'm failing to find anything in the C++ standard that suggests that the
> | > following shall be undefined
> | >
> | > (reinterpret_cast<int*>(0) + 5) - 5
> |
> | If (reinterpret_cast<int*>(0) + 5) - 5 is not undefined, then neither is
> | reinterpret_cast<int*>(0) + 5. Then what is its result, by which paragraph
> | in the standard?
>
> The standard says that the mapping used by reinterpret_cast to turn an
> integer into a pointer is *implemented-defined*. It is not undefined.
> GCC uses the "obvious" mapping, which is reinterpret_cast<int*>(0) is
> the null pointer.
So your example boils down further to the question of whether
((int*)0) + 5 is undefined, but you didn't answer my question
yet. What is the result of ((int*)0) + 5, by which paragraph in the
standard?
--
Falk
