On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 10:01 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : Oh, come on. Both constructions are binary equivalent. > : > : So how can people seriously be with *that* code: > : > : dev->resource = (void *)&dev[1]; > : > : which, semantically, is a nonsense and asks for a fix. > > It isn't nonsense. That's just your opinion of it, nothing more.
No, it's dangerously fragile abuse of the C language which loses type safety etc... It might be correct, but if somebody comes back in 2 year to change something in that code, the chances of breaking it are higher than having the type safe: > : dev_obj->dev.resource = dev_obj->resource; > : Variant. It's also less ugly. > : simply makes sense. > > But this requires extra, bogus fields in the structure and creates a > bogus sizeof issue. > > There are problems both ways. Yelling about it isn't going to make > you any more right, or convince me that I'm wrong. It is an argument > that is at least two decades old... Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
