Re: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem

[Vincent Lefevre <vincent-opgr@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2009-07-06 11:21:30 -0400, Wojtek Lerch wrote:
> I don't think how that's related to the point I was trying to make...
> Perhaps I should clarify it.
> 
> In standard C, the following are two equivalent ways of specifying the
> same behaviour:
> 
> #1 "If the void pointer is a null pointer, then X.  Otherwise, Y".
> #2 "If the void pointer points to an object or to past the end of an
> array, then Y.  Otherwise, X".

I don't think this is the same, because...

> But you are introducing non-null pointers that don't point to any object
> ot past the end of an array.

Such pointers can exist, e.g. a pointer that points to some object
in a malloc'ed area will no longer point to an object (or past the
end of an array) after the area is freed by free().

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)