Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:23:03 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Jack Klein <jackklein AT spamcop DOT net>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: is this a bug?
In-Reply-To: <2tg0cts3iddc003gfs3q9mma4qj9droi1t@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010327112108.21272A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Jack Klein wrote:

> > It works, and not by accident.  But you are right: it's bad C.
> 
> No, there is no requirement that a pointer to an array of chars has
> the same representation as a pointer to char, just as there is no
> requirement for pointer to any different scalar types to have the same
> representation, with the exception of pointer to char and pointer to
> void.

Well, if this is the accident you had in mind, then I agree.  But on any 
machine whose representation of pointers to all objects is identical, the 
code in question will work.