michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au (Michael Henning) (02/07/91)
Something I could not figure out from the various references...
Given
union {
int i;
double d;
} u;
is it legal to assign one member of the union to another? Examples:
u.i = !u.d;
u.d = (double)u.i;
u.d = (double)(u.i * 3.14);
The various standard references (K&R, Harbison & Steele) are not clear
about this. Obviously, the address of the lvalue on the left may be the
same as the address of one or more operands in the expression on the right,
as in
x = -x * x;
But what about the case where the union contains objects of different types
and sizes, as above? It looks legal to me. Has anyone ever encountered a
compiler that generates incorrect code for such a case?
Michi.
--
-m------- Michael Henning +61 75 950255
---mmm----- Pyramid Technology +61 75 522475 FAX
-----mmmmm--- Research Park, Bond University michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au
-------mmmmmmm- Gold Coast, Q 4229, AUSTRALIA uunet!munnari!ptcburp.oz!michi
thorinn@diku.dk (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) (02/09/91)
michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au (Michael Henning) writes: >Given >union { > int i; > double d; >} u; >is it legal to assign one member of the union to another? Examples: Under Semantics of 3.3.16.1 (Simple assignment), the C Standard says: "If the value being stored in an object is accessed from another object that overlaps in any way the storage of the first object, then the overlap shall be exact and the two objects shall have qualified or unqualified version of a compatible type; otherwise the behavior is undefined." The answer to your question is no. -- Lars Mathiesen, DIKU, U of Copenhagen, Denmark [uunet!]mcsun!diku!thorinn Institute of Datalogy -- we're scientists, not engineers. thorinn@diku.dk