My second point explains why you won't normally see this code. My third point, was why it might be interesting to examine. OS developers are allowed to make assumptions about their architecture and use non standard code. Additionally, the creaters of compilers can, and sometime do, have non standard things going on under the hood because they can guarantee the outcome of the code.
So in these implementations the outcome is very much so guaranteed, by the assumptions made by the designers.
Originally Posted by anduril462
Warning: Some or all of my posted code may be non-standard and as such should not be used and in no case looked at.
I understand why you wanted to explain what was likely to happen.They can guarantee it, but I don't have to. You can't guarantee it. C doesn't guarantee it. Some random guy for some random OS on some random hardware guarantees it. It doesn't make his guarantee mean any more than mine. It's undefined by the language. If I say "It seg faults because you just dereferenced a null pointer", I'm right to say so. If he says "No it doesnt, it's for my specific hardware that won't seg fault!". If anything, I'm still more right than he is, if I'm quoting the C standard correctly.
You said it yourself, it is undefnied. If it's undefined, then no, you can't say "This is guaranteed to happen!" Not in reference to the standard anyway. In reference to Bob the random hardware guy you can, but you aren't citing him as a reference point, and so you can't qualify your statement and have it mean anything more than me citing the standard saying you are wrong.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
I think we both agree that this code is not standard. All I am saying is that the OP could see something like this in the future and there is a point to understanding what the code did. As for OS developers, they can and do create non standard code for use within there OS because they can guarantee the outcome of that code(the *nix thing I talked about), which works on many peoples computers. As for the compiler developers I was referring that they could guarantee how their code would work during the compilation phase. the Offsetof() macro use to use this type of coding. It was however a macro that would eventually get converted into a jmp table during compilation phase and thus not cause a segfault on anyone's system. They did guarantee that it would make the conversion.
Warning: Some or all of my posted code may be non-standard and as such should not be used and in no case looked at.
"Because it's there..."
What's that? Sir Edmond Hillory and Lorena Bobbet... Right...
Never mind.
That comment was below the belt.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
But hardly a solo act ... Torture charge after penis put in garbage disposal - World - CBC News
I'm going to get snippy if you don't cut that out.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Your razor sharp whit cuts me to the quick, my friend...
This thread has come up a bit short in the pun department.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
What? You expected Shakespeare's pound of flesh?
(Yes, that's really what they were talking about.)
