From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Mar 30  8: 6:24 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from switchlab.net (ntmail13.lightrealm.com [216.122.135.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B7337B71B
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:06:17 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from seventhson@theseventhson.freeserve.co.uk)
Received: from theseventhson.freeserve.co.uk ([212.113.15.130])
	by switchlab.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA00434;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:08:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3AC4AE65.8C4D9482@theseventhson.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:03:49 +0100
From: Benny Prijono <seventhson@theseventhson.freeserve.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lord Isildur <mrfusion@umbar.vaxpower.org>
Cc: John Franklin <franklin@elfie.org>, tech-kern@netbsd.org,
	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
References: <Pine.3.89.10103301045.B22782-0100000@umbar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Lord Isildur wrote:
> 
> sine one knows the size of the struct, who need the pointer? just
> take the displacement.
> 
> char* buf; /* some buffer */
> struct foo{
> int header;
> struct funkystruct blah;
> };
> 
> (struct foo*)buf; /*your headers are here */
> (struct foo*)buf+1; /* and your data is here */

nice.

personally, I still prefer buf[0], because I think it's more readable.
It's clear for the reader that the struct will be allocated larger
than sizeof(struct foo), while with macro, that's not immediately
obvious.

btw, anybody can list compilers that reject buf[0] (inside struct)? MS
visual C doesn't seem to complain either.

> Isildur
> 

thanks,
Bennylp

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message