From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <775b8d19050429045922ccb4f7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:59:00 +1000
From: Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] pls. HELP porting problem
In-Reply-To: <200504291053.j3TArupm001356@skeeve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200504291053.j3TArupm001356@skeeve.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 42e1e612-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

PCC had a particularly aggressive disregard for indirections
in such cases.  if 'f' was a pointer to a function then ...

f();
(*f)();
(***************************f)();

produced the same code and no diagnostics.

brucee

On 4/29/05, Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
> > in a similar way, one has been able to write
> >       p->f(args)
> > rather than
> >       (*p->f)(args)
> > for quite some time.
>=20
> I think this actually worked in the V7 C compiler and PCC, no?
>=20
> > perhaps it's not in the standard!
>=20
> It is.  I think maybe even since 1989.
>=20
> Arnold