|
|
|
|
|
by pascal_cuoq
2255 days ago
|
|
This line of J.2 only refers to the already cited 6.5.16.1. You keep quoting this clause as if it applied to any of the assignments in the program being discussed. It doesn't. That clause says that in an assignment of the form “lvalue1 = lvalue2;”, there must only be exact overlap or no overlap between lvalue1 and lvalue2. This does not apply to assignments of the form “lvalue = 1;” or “lvalue = 2;” which are the interesting assignments in the program being discussed. Objects are not “basic types” for the original sentence that claimed that “basic types cannot overlap in memory”. Objects overlap in memory all the time. > You repeatedly (in this thread, and on your blog) express that you don't really understand "strict" (ISO standard) aliasing rules, and that seems to be the case. If you say so. I'm not the one who thinks that “* p” and “1” overlap. |
|
> It doesn't.
You keep asserting that 6.5.16.1 is not relevant, as if it makes it so; but it doesn't. It's your opinion; the assertions are not persuasive.
Please explain to me why you continue to believe that is not an object being assigned to an inexactly overlapping object or to an exactly overlapping object with incompatible type?