In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes:
>On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>> >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes:
>> >: Likewise if the first member were a more complex data type, but
>> >: nevertheless the same between the different structures.
>> >:
>> >: It seems safe to me, but I can't explain why :-)
>> >
>> >It is obfuscated 'C', but it is safe. The standard requires that
>> >(void *) &foo == (void *) &foo->s and that if s were a complex
>> >structure that it be laid out the same in all instances of s. So I
>> >think that it is "safe" to do that.
>>
>> Safe, but stupid, since type-safety is lost when doing so.
>
>Type-safety is a cruch for the weak-minded.
As an old assembler programmer I couldn't agree more, but in a project
like FreeBSD we have to realize that not everybody is that.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
