* aotto:
> Hi, the following scenario has a "definition hole" in the "C" language
>
> code example:
>
> -
> struct base {
> ...
> };
>
> struct A {
> struct base obj;
> ...
> } aObj;
>
> struct B {
> struct base obj;
> ...
> } bObj;
>
> void method_base (stru
On Mär 17 2020, Holger Lamm wrote:
> ANSI C 6.5.8 (5) confirms that "... pointers to structure members
> declared later compare greater than pointers to members
> declared earlier in the structure"; I found no definition of address
> to structure vs. address of structure member but t
Am 17.03.20 um 22:41 schrieb Andreas Schwab:
On Mär 17 2020, Holger Lamm wrote:
No. The order of elements of structures in memory is implementation
defined and not guaranteed to be the order of enumeration in the
definition.
That is not true. The first member is guaranteed to have the same
a
On Mär 17 2020, Holger Lamm wrote:
> No. The order of elements of structures in memory is implementation
> defined and not guaranteed to be the order of enumeration in the
> definition.
That is not true. The first member is guaranteed to have the same
address as the whole structure, and subseque
Hi,
Am 02.02.20 um 08:44 schrieb aotto:
Hi, the following scenario has a "definition hole" in the "C" language
code example:
-
struct base {
...
};
struct A {
struct base obj;
...
} aObj;
struct B {
struct base obj;
...
} bObj;
void method_base (struct base
Hi, the following scenario has a "definition hole" in the "C" language
code example:
-
struct base {
...
};
struct A {
struct base obj;
...
} aObj;
struct B {
struct base obj;
...
} bObj;
void method_base (struct base * hdl, ...);
method_base(&aObj, ...)
met
