From: Anthony Williams (anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-05 07:03:25
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> Hi,
Hi
> Anthony Williams <anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | 3.10p15:
> | "If a program attempts to access the stored value of an object through an
> | lvalue of other than one of the following types the behavior is undefined:
> |
> | - the dynamic type of the object,
> |
> | ...
> |
> | - a char or unsigned char type."
> |
> | So given a Foo object foo, static_cast<char*>(static_cast<void*>(&foo)) is
> | legal, and can be used to access the object representation of the object.
>
> There is no question that the above cast is legal. I thin the issue
> is elsewhere. The key question is whether that may be different from
>
> reinterpret_cast<void*>(&foo);
I thought the issue was whether the pair of static_cast<>s in dangerous_cast<>
was as implementation defined as a reintepret_cast<> would be. If you read my
mail to the end, hopefully I have explained that I think that the
static_cast<> pair is legal and well-defined, as opposed to using
reinterpret_cast, which is implementation-defined. If I haven't made myself
clear, I apologise, and will try again.
Anthony
-- Anthony Williams Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd. Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely response.