11 Feb
2006
11 Feb
'06
12:57 a.m.
Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
"Tobias Schwinger" wrote:
Maybe I don't understand the problem correctly.
char* p; p = (char*)&p + 1;
OK, now I get it. And I don't think it's that bad anymore.
I argue somewhere that this is enough for absolutely all practical situations and that other, more complicated types of offset pointer can be removed from shmem.
Right. Who would seriously want to point to the second byte of an address? Thanks, Tobias