Hrrmmm shouldn't those lines be...

[Rick Irving]

Heath Kehoe wrote:
> 
> >
> >Hrrmmm.. I am nit picky.
> >
> >They should devolve to the same thing,
> >but, in some cases it can be "not defined".... .
> 
> I don't follow you... what is not defined?

   Placing an ampersand in front of an array, even
if it is an element of the structure.....

  > 
> >
> >  So, you want to compile on 32 bit stuff forever  ?
> >
> >  (Just kidding)
> >
> >   I am actually looking for possible leaks...
> >
> 
> What does "32 bit" have to do with this?

   What does the (Just Kidding) have to do with it,
would be a corrected question.

  I'll leave that as a exercise for the reader.


> 
> >
> >Same problem in, issue , BTW,
> >
> >trash.c - line 27:
> ><        memset(&token.token, '\0', STORAGE_TOKEN_LENGTH);
> >>        memset(token.token, '\0', STORAGE_TOKEN_LENGTH);
> >
> >
> >ov3.c - line 176:
> ><    memset(&CACHEdata, '\0', sizeof(CACHEdata));
> >>    memset(CACHEdata, '\0', sizeof(CACHEdata));
> >
> >
> >buffindexed.c - line 881:
> ><  memset(&groupdatablock, '\0', sizeof(groupdatablock));
> >>  memset(groupdatablock, '\0', sizeof(groupdatablock));
> >
> 
> I think these should be left alone.  If nothing else, the '&' serves
> as an indicator to someone looking at the code for what is going on.
> When you see '&CACHEdata' you know you've got a pointer to a data
> structure of some kind.  In this case, '&CACHEdata' is a pointer
> to an array.  If you use 'CACHEdata' instead, you're getting a pointer
> to the first element of that array.  It happens that those pointers
> are for the same physical address; but they are semantically different.


   Hrrm. I think this logic may not lint clean...

   char array[9999];

   Now, I can memcpy ( array, target, size), or, I can memcpy (
&array, target, size ).

   According to my tired old K&R background, number 2 is wrong..
err...sloppy, in C.

   If you want to use the second, in the manner you suggest, I might
recommend

   memcpy ( &array[0], target, size ).   Which is great if the array
-isn't- an array
   of chars.

   just my .02
  
   New compilers protect us from too much.

    :)
  

    


 
> 
> -heath