Hmmm ... This may not be as bad as it appears.

All you need is a standard (ie. inbuilt) procedure/statement that can swap two store pointers ... I think.

Joe.

-----Original Message----- From: Markus Gerwinski [SMTP:markus@gerwinski.de] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 5:26 AM To: Maurice Lombardi Cc: gpc@gnu.de Subject: Re: gcc-3+

Hi folks,

Maurice Lombardi wrote:

...

Gosh. How do you do with linked lists, a quite common situation I

believe.

...

If you append records only at the end of the list, you can use the last

"next"

...

pointer as a store pointer. But what do you do if you want to insert a

new

...

record in the middle of the list. Usually either: you keep the address of the next record in a temporary pointer and

allocate

...

the new record with the "next" pointer of the previous: invalid because

you

...

try to new an undisposed pointer. you allocate the new record with a "temporary" pointer (no problem up to

that

...

point, it will be a store pointer) and then insert it, playing with two

"next"

...

pointers: but the previous "next" goes from store to reference status.

And you

...

need to keep somewhere all "temporary" pointers which served you to

allocate

...

the elements ...

Hmm, right. Here you got me. For linked-list maintenance etc., we need the free play with pointers. (Awkward... I missed the trivial case by modeling the complex ones...)

Bye

Markus