Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Un-alignment in structures
Message-ID: <5345@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 12:45:33 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5345
Posted: Tue Mar 26 12:45:33 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 12:45:33 EST
References: <9434@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <4258@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 22

>     ... unaligned struct foo *foop; {
> 
> Is foop a pointer to an unaligned struct foo, or is it an unaligned
> pointer to struct foo?  (The proposed "const" modifier has this
> problem, by the way.)

No it doesn't, and the problem could be solved for "unaligned" in the
same way.  Here's how it works for const:

	const char *pcc;		/* ptr to const char */
	char *const cpc;		/* const ptr to char */

It is agreed that the syntax is a bit ugly, but then C declaration
syntax has never been beautiful.

(None of this is to be taken to constitute an endorsement of "unaligned".
I tend to side with the people who think its contribution to portability
would be marginal, perhaps even negative [it deludes people into thinking
that their stuff is portable, when it's not].)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry