On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 06:20:26PM +0100, Zsbán Ambrus <amb...@math.bme.hu>
wrote:
> elements that way. The compiler warns about that because the C
> standard doesn't guarantee that the rest of the elements of the struct
> doesn't change how the first elements are laid out in the struct, but
To the contrary, the C standard guarantees just that, and gcc follows it.
Seearch for common initial sequence.
Think about it, if the C standard didn't make that guarantee, unions would
be mostly useless.
Don't make so certain statements about the C standard if you don't really
know it - you are doing a disservice to anybody else who might be stupid
enough to blindly believe you.
(Sorry to be so explicit, but I get really annoyed when people argue with
made-up arguments like yours - check your facts, this is easy enough to
google).
> that isn't likely to happen on any real system (which has abi rules so
> different compilers can interoperate). In theory, one could avoid
It cannot happen on any system, real or theoretic, as long as it
implements C.
> Incidentally, what bothers me more than these aliasing warnings is
> that there's both a structure called struct ev_loop and a function
> called ev_loop in the same header. Apparently C++ does allow this --
C allows it as well of course. I am not swure what others you, but the
struct tag namespace and the function identifier namespace are distinct in
both languages, and have been that way forever.
Of course, if standard C (or C++) bothers you, maybe you could interest
yourself with the perl interface, which has simpler scoping rules, albeit
Perl has never been standardised.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
libev mailing list
libev@lists.schmorp.de
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
