“The C type system has been adapted to a great number of architectures. As C was adapted to new systems, decisions had to be made. Should the int type be the same size on every new system, or should it be the most convenient size on every system, even if this meant it wasn’t always the same size? The first article of the series introduces the type system itself, explaining the basic types and the system of type qualifiers and storage-class specifiers.”
Please do fix this, as I am actually interested in the subject. Maybe I’m the only one, but sometimes youmay wantto satisfy only one customer :o)
seems to work now.
I’ve never realised the semantic capabilities of an undefined struct declaration. Furthermore, I’ve never seen these particular semantics for struct tags used in any code I’ve maintained or perused.
Of course, these struct declarations don’t really offer any new functionality–since not being able to dereference a structure’s elements is functionally equivalent to having used a void pointer in the first place–but they do offer a bit more rigorous compile-time error checking.
I’m certainly pleased to have read this article, and am looking forward to the rest of the series.