From 6340499579237997675
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e94695845965b249
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-12-15 08:14:04 PST
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!maxtal
From: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller)
Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
Message-ID: <1992Dec15.160548.10037@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU
Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney
References: <24392@alice.att.com> <1992Dec12.162211.5076@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <24398@alice.att.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:05:48 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <24398@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.162211.5076@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
>
[deleted]
>No, that's just the opposite of that I said.
>
>I said `the context that WAS current.'

	Phew! Sorry, I think ...
>
>Perhaps an example will make it clearer:
>
>	void (*p)(void);
>	void f(int n)
>	{
>		void g() { printf("%d\n", n); }

	of there being only *one* function 'g()' here,
not a new one for each activation record. I though you were saying
only ever one trampoline for 'g' was needed, what you meant
was at most one for each pair (g,activation of f)

-- 
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
	Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------