Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!pegasus!ech
From: ech@pegasus.ATT.COM (Edward C Horvath)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: foo = *((bar *)stuff)
Message-ID: <2822@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Apr 89 19:14:19 GMT
References: <713@tekno.chalmers.se>
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 32

From article <713@tekno.chalmers.se>, by d83_sven_a@tekno.chalmers.se (Sven (Sciz) Axelsson):
> Am I really out of line, or is this a true-to-God bug in the final release
> of MPW C 3.0?? Isn't this code supposed to assign the integer value contained
> at memory position 10 to the variable x?

>         x = *((int *)10);

> In MPW C 3.0 this generates exactly the same code as would x = 10.
> Am I right or am I right?

If you were right, then yes, perhaps you're right. But I fed MPW C 3.0
the following:

	int x,y;
	foo()
	{
		x = 10;
		y = *((int *) 10);
	}

I then ran dumpobj on the resulting .c.o; it reported, in part,

	LINK       A6,#$0000
	MOVEQ      #$0A,D0
	MOVE.L     D0,x                ; id: 4
	MOVE.L     $000A,y             ; id: 3
	UNLK       A6
	RTS        

which looks fine to me.  Efficient, no; correct, yes.

=Ned Horvath=