On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:59:24AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > What I said is that I can write this C code: > > int x[2], * p = (int *) (((char *) &x)+1); > main() > { > *p = 0; > } > > This is legal C code. Err, no. This is not "legal" by any stretch of the imagination. This code has undefined behaviour. As such, it may work, it may sigbus, it may write data at some address unrelated to "x", or it may start World War III (with appropriate hardware attached). We aren't even obliged to allow this to compile. r~ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Russell King
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Russell King
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Andi Kleen
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Russell King
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Manfred
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Andi Kleen
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Manfred
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Russell King
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Richard Henderson
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Richard Henderson
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Richard Henderson
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Thomas Pornin
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Trond Myklebust
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Manfred Spraul
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Trond Myklebust
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.19pre7 Trond Myklebust
- Re: Compatibility issue with 2.2.1... Andrea Arcangeli