From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46910)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peterx@redhat.com>) id 1aiBgX-0005Xo-Lf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:04:42 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peterx@redhat.com>) id 1aiBgW-0003ND-Q2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:04:41 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:04:18 +0800
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160322020418.GC4468@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
References: <1457502997-30904-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
	<1457502997-30904-2-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
	<56E0A02B.50102@redhat.com>
	<20160310014625.GE4091@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
	<56F06448.50308@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56F06448.50308@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] block/qapi: make two printf() formats
	literal
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 03:14:48PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/09/2016 06:46 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > 
> > Is this a grammar btw?
> 
> Yes, C has an ugly grammar, because [] is just syntactic sugar for
> deferencing pointer addition with nicer operator precedence.  Quoting
> C99 6.5.2.1:
> 
> "The definition of the subscript operator [] is that E1[E2] is identical
> to (*((E1)+(E2))).  Because of the conversion rules that apply to the
> binary + operator, if E1 is an array object (equivalently, a pointer to
> the initial element of an array object) and E2 is an integer, E1[E2]
> designates the E2-th element of E1 (counting from zero)."
> 
> And a string literal is just a fancy way of writing the address of an
> array of characters (where the address is chosen by the compiler).
> 
> Thus, it IS valid to dereference the addition of an integer offset with
> the address implied by a string literal in order to obtain a character
> within the string.  And since the [] operator is commutative (even
> though no one in their right mind commutes the operands), you can also
> write the even-uglier:
> 
> composite["\n "]
> 
> But now we've gone far astray from the original patch review :)

Interesting thing to know.  Thanks. :)

-- peterx