I had to know for absolutely sure so I wrote a little test case and used the debugger to check it.<div><br></div><div><div>typedef struct complexStruct</div><div>{</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>double r;</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>double i;</div><div>} complex;</div><div><br></div><div>complex a,b;</div><div>complex *pa,*pb;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span></div>
<div>a.r = 1.0; // Initialize the members</div><div>a.i = 2.0;</div><div>b.r = 0.0;</div><div>b.i = 0.0;</div><div>pa = &amp;a; // Get a pointer to a and b</div><div>pb = &amp;b;</div><div>b = a; // Copy a to b</div><div>
pa = &amp;a; // Get a pointer to a and b and verify with debugger. There is no address change.</div><div>pb = &amp;b;</div><div>a.r = 0.0; // Just for fun, change a and make sure b doesn&#39;t change in debugger</div><div>
a.i = 0.0; // If a and b were the same address now both would change and they don&#39;t</div><div><br></div><div>This verifies that b = a; copies the members instead of setting b&#39;s pointer to a&#39;s pointer.</div><div class="gmail_quote">
<br></div>-- <br>Mike Frazier<br><a href="http://www.fracton.org">www.fracton.org</a><br>
</div>