[ENet-discuss] ENetPeer pointer comparison..

[Syed Setia Pernama]

No there is no casting, I simply store ENetPeer as it is, and when packet arrives back, I simply compare and they are not equivalent..
Probably there is a mistaken within my code, but the code is very simple.. that is the reason why I emailed just in case anyone has ever encountered something similar..




________________________________
 From: Jay Sprenkle <jsprenkle at gmail.com>
To: Syed Setia Pernama <syedhs at yahoo.com>; Discussion of the ENet library <enet-discuss at cubik.org> 
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] ENetPeer pointer comparison..
 


If you are using c++ and casting an object to it's base type you will get a different pointer than if you cast the object to the derived type. Both are valid pointers to the same object but can't be compared.


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Syed Setia Pernama <syedhs at yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,
>
>
>I am 80% sure nothing wrong is with my code. Here I copy+paste the log:-
>
>
>22:12:48: Pinging peer (pointer=29411384, ip = 10.1.1.10)
>22:12:48: Pinging peer (pointer=29411764, ip = 10.1.1.30)
>22:12:48: ID_GENERAL_PING  (pointer=29412144)
>
>
>
>What happened is I ping (using my own structure) two peers which has ENetPeer pointer address = 29411384 & 29411764. And then the peer is supposed to reply back, and I compare the ENetPeer
>stored in ENetEvent, and they are not the same! 29412144 is not the same with both (29411384 & 29411764). What I was hoping is the ENetPeer stored in ENetEvent should equal to either one,
>and therefore my code works.
>
>
>Question:
>Can anyone confirm that ENet indeed create a new copy of ENetPeer (not reusing it) for the above case?
>
>
>TIA.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ENet-discuss mailing list
>ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>
>


-- 
http://xkcd.com/1156/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cubik.org/pipermail/enet-discuss/attachments/20130331/5e867480/attachment.html>