Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Functions with union parameters
Message-ID: <3320@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 6-Apr-84 14:03:54 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.3320
Posted: Fri Apr  6 14:03:54 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 06:13:30 EST
References: <4107@edai.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 14

I believe "lint" does warn about the non-portable struct/union kludges
in your examples.  However, if you were to use correct types for the
parameters in the first place, it would be perfectly portable (as I
believe Guy Harris has pointed out in another response).

A useful guideline is: with few exceptions, if one finds he is using
coercions (typecasts) heavily, he has chosen inappropriate data types.

It is true that some C implementations may have to resort to "thunks"
to pass struct/array parameters or function return values.  This can
be messy; for example, on PDP-11 UNIXes, one cannot use struct-valued
functions in the kernel since interrupts wreak havoc with the partially-
returned structs.  It is also usually much more efficient to pass
pointers to structs than the actual structs, as is well known.