(I wrote:) > > Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the > > containing struct as a whole?
No takers? > Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:34:04 -0400 > From: DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> > Should be the same as before, I would think. Primarily I want them similarly defined. I wasn't expecting those access to be actually changed by your patches. Of course it'd be nice if they could tag along. :) The first step is this: to check if anyone is against them being well-defined (in GNU C terms, of course not in ISO C terms), and perhaps whether people believe that it's obvious one way (like I do) or the other (like it seemed other people did). Thanks BTW, for pushing through the subject as well as the patches. :) brgds, H-P PS. Happy midsummer!
