Den 14-Sep-99 13:44:38 skrev Alexandre Oliva følgende om "Re: type based aliasing again":
> On Sep 14, 1999, Bernd Schmidt <bernds@cygnus.co.uk> wrote:

>> If, by "cast to union", you mean code of the form

>>    union foo { double a; int b[2]; };
>>    double x;
>>    x = 2.0;
>>    ((union foo *)&x)->b[1] = 0;

>> then this is not even going to work with gcc

> But isn't exactly this work-around that we've have been recommending
> to the Linux folks?  Houston, we have a problem! :-) / 2

   The recommendation in the GCC manual, if that is anything to go by, is
not to "cast to union" but to use a union. I.e. something like

    union foo { double a; int b[2]; };
    foo.a = 2.0;
    foo.b[1] = 0;

   This is documented to work, actually works, is shorter, is not
write-only, etc.

Regards,

/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯T¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen       | E-mail: mailto:rask@kampsax.k-net.dk  |
| Registered Phase5 developer    | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ |
| A4000, 866 kkeys/s (RC5-64)    | "ThrustMe" on XPilot, ARCnet and IRC  |
| If a train station is where a train stops, what is a workstation then? |