From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:49:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:49:42 -0500 Received: from [202.135.142.194] ([202.135.142.194]:31749 "EHLO wagner.rustcorp.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:49:30 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:02:09 +1000 From: Rusty Russell To: Andreas Schwab Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops cleanup 2/4 Message-Id: <20020404120209.4bfd92d0.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-debian-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:48:08 +0200 Andreas Schwab wrote: > gcc is correct. "&array" and "array" are different. While they represent > the same address, the types are not compatible. Eg. for "int array[5]" > the type of "array" is "int [5]" (decaying to "int *" in most contexts), > but the type of "&array" is "int (*)[5]" (pointer to array of 5 ints). Ah, of course. Thankyou the clue contribution. I should have thought harder in the first place. (To the audience) Patch, of course, is still correct.. Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.