malc writes: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > [..snip..] > > > Are we talking ISO C or GNU C here? This is OK for GNU C, and I think > > for POSIX. > > You mentioned ISO C a few times. So i'd guess we are talking c89. OK. I don't think it matters: the rules of C89 and C99 are not substantially different in this area. > > > However i'm not targetting standard C > > > > So why are you using -pedantic? -pedantic is only for strict ISO C. > > Because i happen to compile with 5-6 versions of gcc on different > platforms with different ideas of what -W[xxx] turns on and throwing > `-pedantic' into the mix generally turns on more. Sure, it does, but why do you want them? They're not going to make your programs any better. > [..snip..] > > > ... > > * The cast below is the correct way to handle the problem. > > * The (void *) cast is to avoid a GCC warning like: > > * "warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break \ > > * strict-aliasing rules" > > * which is wrong this code. (void *) introduces a compatible > > * intermediate type in the cast list. > > */ > > count -= got, *(char **)(void *)&buffer += size * got; > > > > I'm not convinced this hackery is correct by my reading of ISO C, and > > in any case it's pointless. It could be replaced by: > > > > count -= got, buffer = (char*)buffer + (size * got); > > That's not for me to decide, not a language layer by any stretch of > imagination. I don't understand this remark. Andrew.
