From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id aaee932d for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:34:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id AAECCA1CE6; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 02:34:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4CC9E280; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 02:34:40 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=PsH9bUTZ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4C3A69E280; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 02:34:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f171.google.com (mail-lj1-f171.google.com [209.85.208.171]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83C839B5D7 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 02:34:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f171.google.com with SMTP id u83-v6so10389361lje.12 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mPTctiNe9c2mudJGDQF36Zvs5IAda3rVl5So+iTTAB0=; b=PsH9bUTZvl+O6480DV+2sfq+KNR/ekX2yCFqi7iQKNhc+wiOOBl7q2pkAXdhURuOmw bIGt3oqCcF3/NdxokAQgm9TCa6fMQfqjaG+uDoXixNrqedaZSF0TDaOGw4vA3q9D5yAH 4KrivUHhaylPOSB4dtEtG56HwXFt434pdBspBLOHSUFwebVqP2o7wC6ojDRoujJwzMo8 BUhJhwVHPtWgcB0cYKUj3+mRCzAhtKlzYiH9stYZqonKCv2h7dxEwyP0nSr0eraxbPgD gQIIwLfAMIX+pYJ1TzdfaY6MlVCNcYJ0RWK/ykHS2JLgYGbERnnV/MG24uYfvo5uonbm 2DIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=mPTctiNe9c2mudJGDQF36Zvs5IAda3rVl5So+iTTAB0=; b=W3G2ejR6apakTa3GJXC2BFjekjXmUTJ8CEwC/hQXxZdA42t3MW3tbCuCaHlZoPNIBX Bxy97P0BLtahSE4rz/NAxDDO1yW1IfKg/qb/rKwFrZz/m+oMbgmNaylNKlAFksx1WP+3 MKFKlfsq43dfHR9BsSFMYkF4Tv/cr3aSluQse3IWBkj0Nsw1VknkdhPiRURi/39BVBL6 6rfPZkHoD5bixVlave2n9Dz7iU3uhUpU4/mOYdQYRNBr9Z0DJ1AMXg9Y5Bb51MsCIOYt jeY0EH5MD0G4gCqTUwcXYir0d8a7cS4nURKAvxUAyWHShWSh5c5qlvgjNdrOaP2+qsFN BuyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BQ6M8B8Y7tvYwEUd5Xp7GALDb5hdZyAgRSMa0QTtOf9zXPsyjK MphzBctzgRK5ItefiFACMAQWc5jCCwilCE/hoAeheA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbE+1KiX/1WAKRX75+KTtcIhg59k41P8DKC9dbZABWFzNOabJnC7WgydPQcM1Ub8WOhi26Wv+I8io2QEv9b+aI= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2096:: with SMTP id g22-v6mr6210529lji.37.1535301274717; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a2e:82cb:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180824181522.2nrUS%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <10c401d43aef$8be34870$a3a9d950$@ronnatalie.com> <151301d43b2f$07881ed0$16985c70$@ronnatalie.com> <20180823231413.QeahD%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <20180824141348.1NLUE%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <1f6201d43bb7$3b9ebde0$b2dc39a0$@ronnatalie.com> <20180824181522.2nrUS%steffen@sdaoden.eu> From: Paul Winalski Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 12:34:34 -0400 Message-ID: To: TUHS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] C++ / Kernel X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On 8/24/18, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > > Though even more unfortunate i am, since this union trick is often > the only way to be able to do proper a.k.a. allowed type > conversion, where the standard text forbids something quick and > easy, casting of or to function pointers in C++ comes to mind > spontaneously. (The linked story also tries to go via (char*) to > a desired type, but the compiler seems to be too neat. And even > if this is a bug, of course...) One of the complaints about DEC's C99 compiler for Ultrix was that it was too didactic in its enforcement of the C99 standard. One customer called it the Rush Limbough of compilers, because it was extremely conservative and you couldn't argue with it. Function pointers can be tricky, as they might not be simple pointers to a sequence of instructions. On Itanium, for example, a C pointer-to-function points to a descriptor for the function, not the function code itself. -Paul W.