From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:28:27 -0700
From: Roman V Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <a53acd743c3a6f747bf168ee2d08a2d4@coraid.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1247603308.18344.5574.camel@work.SFBay.Sun.COM>
References: <abc85ad6c854d3fc457396f6143aebc0@quanstro.net>
	<1247591909.18344.5479.camel@work.SFBay.Sun.COM>
	<21dabe281409184572838ffa29c8fe14@coraid.com>
	<1247597974.18344.5496.camel@work.SFBay.Sun.COM>
	<a53acd743c3a6f747bf168ee2d08a2d4@coraid.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] pointers to incomplete types
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 20974188-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 15:29 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > The above paragraph has nothing to do with pointers to incomplete types
> > (except for a clarification). Why are you bringing this up?
>
> assuming that pointers to incomplete types are
> themselves incomplete, and you haven't cited
> chapter and verse showing they are, i read that paragraph
> as saying that what plan 9 libraries do would be
> illegal, and therefore if we follow the standard,
> we'd need to remove Incomplete*s and replace
> them with void*s.
>
> if i'm wrong, can you explain how?

The pointer to the incomplete type is a "pointer type",
not an incomplete type. It is part of the section
describing tye type system of C99 (section 6.2.5).

Look for "derived types".

Thanks,
Roman.