Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Bug causing ethereal to crash

["J. Scott Berg" <jsberg@xxxxxxx>]

Guy Harris wrote:

> Are those rules C89'isms or C99'isms?

They are C89-isms.

> According to this note:
>
> 	http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/tech-kern/2003/08/11/0001.html
>
> the use of unions to force the compiler to acknowledge that two pointers
> to objects of different type can point to the same object is a GCCism
> not guaranteed to work with other compilers.

I don't think that is a GCCism.  The quotation from the standard (C99,
but the text is similar in C89) given in the link you reference
indicates otherwise.

However, I think in the end it is simpler to just require anything
that wants to use the slab allocator to have a next pointer.

--
J. Scott Berg                           Email: jsberg@xxxxxxx