Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:20:48 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <87mscmsgov.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vt2lp6$1qtjd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt31m5$2513i$1@dont-email.me> <vt3d4g$2djqe$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt3iqh$2ka99$1@dont-email.me> <868qoaeezc.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vt3oeo$2oq3p$1@dont-email.me> <86mscqcpy1.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vt48go$35hh3$2@dont-email.me> <86iknecjz8.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vt4del$3a9sk$1@dont-email.me> <86o6x5at05.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vt712u$1m84p$1@dont-email.me> <20250409170901.947@kylheku.com>
	<vt88bk$2rv8r$1@dont-email.me>
	<87wmbs45oa.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vt8hdp$333f0$1@dont-email.me>
	<87semf4pw5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vt9let$4au3$1@dont-email.me>
	<87zfgn344c.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<20250411142636.00006c00@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 20:20:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c7132c9dc01e9da84b004e8ef39b7407";
	logging-data="2384762"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19V9lGedWLy/UOVbVtu2OMC"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1OhKsCALhnQGG2DR2H/8tpEA4h4=
	sha1:joZ4VdIUNCiXKq3/EWKJ5FPV+S0=
Bytes: 2681

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 17:59:15 -0700
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> An understanding of what "compatible types" means. 
>
> Bart didn't say that types are compatible or non-compatible.
> He said that they are 'compatible enough'. That is not terminology of C
> Standard, but terminology of his own. And he seems to understand it.
>
> In my own translation, 'compatible enough' means that when these structs
> are accessed then any sane or even semi-sane compiler will generate code
> that will have the same effect as in case of access through structures
> with literally identical declarations.

Your speculation about what Bart meant is, I think, likely to be
correct.  If it is, he's talking about types having the same
representation.

That's not what "compatibility" means.  Calling types "compatible
enough" when they merely have the same representation is misleading.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */