From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Define a structure for object IDs. Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 13:23:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87zjiwsc4a.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <1399147942-165308-1-git-send-email-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <1399147942-165308-2-git-send-email-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <5365D91E.70207@alum.mit.edu> <536606AB.1020803@kdbg.org> <5366A09E.6030802@kdbg.org> <87ppjt6xjv.fsf@igel.home> <87lhugu7iw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87vbtk60lh.fsf@igel.home> <87d2fstuzw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87r4485vve.fsf@igel.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Johannes Sixt , Michael Haggerty , "brian m. carlson" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Schwab X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 06 18:55:07 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WhhyK-0005Yp-4B for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 18:12:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756393AbaEELXU (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2014 07:23:20 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:59252 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753496AbaEELXU (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2014 07:23:20 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58292 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WhGzN-0004w5-JS; Mon, 05 May 2014 07:23:17 -0400 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3D857E048F; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:23:17 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87r4485vve.fsf@igel.home> (Andreas Schwab's message of "Mon, 05 May 2014 13:05:09 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andreas Schwab writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> Your premise is _not_ assumed in my statement. My premise was "a >> pointer to something of the same type of [the struct's] first member". >> That does quite explicitly _not_ state that an object of struct type is >> in existence. > > So you are not taking about struct object_id, and it's irrelevant to > this thread. > > This thread is about objects of type struct object_id, and their address > is always the same as the address of its first member. Nothing else is > relevant. Have it your way. I am too old for selective quotation games. -- David Kastrup