We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
if ((&x - &y) != 1889) // 1889 IS FIXED NUMBER do not change { // do not bypass/change, see comments above while (1) // do not bypass/change, see comments above { // do not bypass/change, see comments above PING_WDOGS(); // do not bypass/change, see comments above } // do not bypass/change, see comments above } // do not bypass/change, see comments above
for various reasons the dfference between &x and &y must stay what it is or "unanticipated" errors that may pass a test will occur.
I hate to 'hang' whoever makes the illegal change and would thus prefer #if ((&x - &y) != 1889) #error : illegal change #endif
is thare a way to circumvent the preprocessors objections?
Erik
Not too fun with a construct where address of two variables have to have fixed distance.
It's slightly more common to have structures where fields are expected to be at a specific offset (but still quite hurtful).
Could you possibly share reason for your requirement? I would be interesteed in seeing if there might have existed some other language or design construct for the original problem.