This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

this is non portable code ?


unsigned char buf[100]
.
.
.
unsigned int val;
.
.
.
val = *((unsigned int *)(&buf[1]));
.
.
.

comments?

Parents
  • It is nice that you see that I have a lot of experience.

    Sadly you do seem to have a lot of experience of bugs which you should never have introduced into the code in the first place. Your assumption when something doesn't work as you expect is that the problem lies with the tools - this is quite typical of those who (as you admit openly, in fact you seem proud of it) haven't read the appropriate documentation.

    Note that in this case the 'tool' is the 'C' language, and the 'appropriate documentation' is the definition of the language.

    you must have missed "BTW the 'error' was not mine, it occurred ... in my post.

    Yes, I noticed you try to salvage some credibility in a followup post.

Reply
  • It is nice that you see that I have a lot of experience.

    Sadly you do seem to have a lot of experience of bugs which you should never have introduced into the code in the first place. Your assumption when something doesn't work as you expect is that the problem lies with the tools - this is quite typical of those who (as you admit openly, in fact you seem proud of it) haven't read the appropriate documentation.

    Note that in this case the 'tool' is the 'C' language, and the 'appropriate documentation' is the definition of the language.

    you must have missed "BTW the 'error' was not mine, it occurred ... in my post.

    Yes, I noticed you try to salvage some credibility in a followup post.

Children
  • Sadly you do seem to have a lot of experience of bugs which you should never have introduced into the code in the first place.
    When being a member of groups, I have most often been "the debugger" thus your uttely stupid assumption that bugs I have seen were those I "have introduced into the code in the first place" is completely false.

    Your assumption when something doesn't work as you expect is that the problem lies with the tools
    Where on earth did you get that impression? Of course in a toolmakers forum tools are the main subject of discussion, it evidently takes a smoked sardine to ASS U ME that limiting a discussion to the subject means that there are no other subjects.

    Erik