Advanced Minds

Imanpreet Andrew Koenig < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message <news: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Imanpreet {int x = 5, *y = &x; y

translating a C++ program Yes, but that's out-of-context, I tried to emphasis the fact that the order you perform operations DOES matter as far as the datatype is concerned, I gave much better example in a follow-up to the thread. When we express our desire in C++, we expect the resulting instruction stream to carry that intent in binary. The out-of-order execution was just my way of saying, that, sure, the order of operations actually done in hardware is a different thing. How can you keep repeating that we somehow disagree when we do not? =) Jukka

Ioannis Vranos <noicys@no_.yahoo.s_pam.com wrote in message I was wrong in both situations concerning that the pointers pointed at wrong memory places at the end, but i am right on the fact that you point twice in illegal areas which is not guaranteed to work. Only one element past the end of an array is safe to point, and there only to point, not to dereference (for standard library containers the same applies too). Ioannis