lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: GCC 3.4 Heads-up
> Similarly, what the _hell_ does the gcc extension
>
> int a;
>
> (char)a += b;
>
> really mean? The whole extension is just braindamaged,

It means a = (int)((char)a + b).
(Modulo the fact that the value of the expression is the sum of type
char and not the final value of type int.)

Applied to integer types, it *is* pretty brain damaged. But applied to
pointer types, it makes a lot more sense.

This is because "a += b" in C is actually "a += b * sizeof(*a)", and
sometimes you want a different *a.

In particular, 1 is a popular value.

Consider the common case of a structure which has a bunch of variable-sized
blocks with a standard header:

struct foo {
unsigned type, size;
...
} a;

Then you *do* have to write
a = (struct foo *)((char *)a + a->size);

and I might argue that

(char *)a += a->size;

is definitely cleaner.

Or consider the case when the structure doesn't have an explicit size
and you have a big case statement for parsing it:

switch (a->type) {
case BAR:
process_bar_chunk(((struct bar *)a)++);
break;
case BAZ:
process_baz_chunk(((struct baz *)a)++);
break;
...
};

Isn't that code a bit nicer looking? I put the redundant parens
in to remind people that I didn't mean to write "(struct bar *)(a++)"
(which also has its legitimate uses).


Necessary, no. But not "brain damaged", either.
It's well-defined and has legitimate uses.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.027 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site