(j3.2006) More about Note 5.10

Van Snyder van.snyder
Wed Feb 7 20:37:15 EST 2007

I couldn't find normative support for Note 5.10 [91:8+1-3].

There are constraints (C725 [163:32] and C727 [164:8]) that prevent
pointer assignment across images, but nothing (that I could find in that prevents intrinsic assignment across images if the type is
one that has pointer components.  I also couldn't find anything in 6(.0)
about cross-image pointer dereferencing.

Perhaps instead of trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to constrain type
definitions and object declarations so that cross-image pointer
dereference is impossible, we should either prohibit that, or just say
its effect is either processor dependent or undefined.  [117:3-4] seems
like a good place.  Perhaps add "and the reference, the pointer, and the
target are all on the same image" after "defined".  Then Note 5.10
should be worded differently.

Maybe add near there "An object of type IMAGE_TEAM or an object that has
an ultimate component of type IMAGE_TEAM shall not be referenced on a
different image from the object" somewhere near there.

Then we could delete C446 [63:26] and C526 [91:6].

Van Snyder                    |  What fraction of Americans believe 
Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov       |  Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or
disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, the President, or anybody else.

More information about the J3 mailing list