On Thursday 02 January 2014 04:33:30 Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 January 2014 20:46:59 Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> Nevertheless, some compilers > >> (e.g., gcc with the '-pedantic' option) may complain about the cast > >> used in this program. */ > > > > three things: > > - i think the ISO C standard is required to at least emit a warning > > Yes, but it's not quite clear to me if the POSIX.1-2013 is meaning > that compilers should not issue a warning in this case. Maybe I'm > misunderstanding something, though. true. in this particular case, it's probably not worth being super pedantic since we covered our bases earlier on. overall question: should the new comment block live above or below the example call ? it's currently below, but i kind of favor putting it before. i know as the content flows, the current one makes a bit of sense (show the right answer, and then as an aside, mention the portability issue), but the comment is specifically covering this line, so putting it above the line it is discussing is a bit more standard i think in the coding world. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
