Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:13637 comp.std.c:463
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: union *func()
Keywords: union, pointers, functions
Message-ID: <14172@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 26 Oct 88 18:27:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: mimsy.14172
References: <2205@arcturus>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 24

In article <2205@arcturus> evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie) writes:
>Is the following code portable, strictly conforming, etc.
>	a = function()->member;
>as in something like the following (really simplified) code:
[deleted]

It is conforming, etc., if function() returns a pointer to a structure
or union and the `member' field corresponds to a member of that
structure or union.  Likewise,

	a = function().member;

is conforming, etc., if function() returns a structure or union and the
`member' field corresponds, etc., with one additional restriction: the
member must not be an array.

Nonetheless, the second form is another one of those things that
compilers have got wrong in the past; you are better off with

	lump = function();
	a = lump.member;
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris