| |||||||||||||
The timer API: size or type safety?The timer API: size or type safety?Posted Dec 7, 2006 20:34 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246)In reply to: The timer API: size or type safety? by pimlott Parent article: The timer API: size or type safety?
Is typeof() standard C or a GNU extension?
(Log in to post comments)
The timer API: size or type safety? Posted Dec 8, 2006 18:20 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Is typeof() standard C or a GNU extension?I'ts GNU C. But it looks like it isn't necessary for this technique.
The timer API: size or type safety? Posted Dec 8, 2006 19:42 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] Are you certain? Let's look at that closely:
typeof(*data) *p = data;
timer->function = (void (*)(void *)) func;
timer->data = (void *) p;
(void)(0 && (func(p), 0));
I guess your statement is that the last line, (func(p)) could be rewritten as (func(data)) instead. I can see that.
The timer API: size or type safety? Posted Jan 3, 2007 19:48 UTC (Wed) by rjbell4 (guest, #35764) [Link] The reason you wouldn't necessarily do that is that "data" may actually be an expression that has a side effect, so you don't want to reference it twice.
The timer API: size or type safety? Posted Jan 3, 2007 19:59 UTC (Wed) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] So, I guess typeof(*data) doesn't evaluate data then? I guess that makes sense.
The timer API: size or type safety? Posted Jan 3, 2007 20:01 UTC (Wed) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] Actually, hold on... (0 && func(data)) shouldn't evaluate data a second time under any circumstances anyway.
|
|||||||||||||