Archie Cobbs writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > Prove me wrong with a specific ISO C specification clause, if you > > > claim otherwise. > > > > I spent a long time working on and supporting gcc, and this is the > > rule I've had to refer people to more times than any other. It's > > amazing how many programmers don't know the specfication. > > You guys are going off into the weeds. All that's required from C > for the byte[] strategy to work is that this works: > > void *ptr; > char *buf; > > ptr = <any valid pointer value> > buf = malloc(sizeof(ptr)); > memcpy(buf, &ptr, sizeof(ptr)); > > ... then sometime later ... > > memcpy(&ptr, buf, sizeof(ptr)); > <continue using the fully restored ptr> > > I'm not a specophile but I would guess that C does at least guarantee this.
It does. I'm not trying to get into a debate about micro- optimization: given the overhead of JNI, it's probably not important. What I care about is that the code should be legal, maintainable, and efficient -- in that order. Having spent a lot of time working on SWT, the ability to subclass a native pointer is IMO very important indeed. It would have saved me a huge amount of time if native pointers had types. This is more important than quibbles about efficiency. However, if someone posts code that I don't believe is legal, I will point it out. I mean, I can't help it. :-) Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
