On 2014-03-02, Dave Angel <da...@davea.name> wrote: > Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> Wrote in message: >> On 2014-02-24, Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Why would you think that? The address of the start of your malloc'ed >>> structure is the same as the address of the first element. Surely >>> this is logical? >> >> Not only is it logical, the C standard explicitly requires it. Here's >> a second-hand citation since I don't happend to have an actual copy of >> the standard on hand: >> >> C1x ???6.7.2.1.13: >> >> A pointer to a structure object, suitably converted, points to >> its initial member ... and vice versa. There may be unnamed >> padding within a structure object, but not at its beginning. > > The quote you make from the C standard doesn't mention malloc, so > you're arguing different things.
No, I'm not. A pointer to a structure object and a pointer to it's first field are the same. It doesn't matter where the object came from. > It's not the compiler that casts the malloc return value to the > struct type. That's irrelevent. The actual location of the memory containing the struct object (static, stack, heap, shared) doesn't matter. The address of the first field in a struture object _is_ the address of the structure object. -- Grant -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
