Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!aplcen!haven!ncifcrf!nlm-mcs!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: const and struct pointers
Message-ID: <12244@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 27 Feb 90 19:09:54 GMT
References: <1214@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <12570046@hpclwjm.HP.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <12570046@hpclwjm.HP.COM> walter@hpclwjm.HP.COM (Walter Murray) writes:
>But in the posted example, the argument and parameter are structures,
>not pointers.  It seems to me that the code is legal.

Thanks for posting the original example, which I had misremembered
as passing a pointer, not the actual struct.  Of course you're right
that a qualified struct can be passed to a function expecting an
unqualified struct, because the argument is assignment-compatible
(meaning: 3.3.16.1 Constraints are met) with the parameter type,
once the qualifier is stripped as per 3.2.2.1, as footnote 48 in the
December 1988 draft reminds us.  It's easy to see how an implementor
could miss that, by not taking literally the requirement that
argument passing be as if by simple assignment.