Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!ibmpa!lmb
From: lmb@ibmpa.UUCP (Larry Breed)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Two standards problems
Message-ID: <1829@ibmpa.UUCP>
Date: 23 Aug 89 22:24:50 GMT
References: <178@ixi.UUCP> <183@ixi.UUCP> <10397@smoke.BRL.MIL> <800@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <806@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <186@ixi.UUCP> <10724@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: lmb@ibmpa.UUCP (Larry Breed)
Organization: IBM AWD, Palo Alto
Lines: 23

In article <10724@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>
>->(Q11) Can offsetof take "field1.field2" as its second argument ?
>
>This doesn't seem to have been the intent of Standard section 4.1.5.
>
Actually it was the intent.  Earlier drafts defined
	offsetof(type, identifier)  
where the identifier designated a member.  

The final draft defined
	offsetof(type, member-designator)
and says "... the member-designator shall be such that given
	static type t;
then the expression &(t.member-designator) evaluates to an address constant."
This change was made specifically to allow things like

	offsetof(struct fancy, inner_struct.a[10])

-- 
Larry Breed
inet: lmb%ibmsupt@uunet.uu.net
uucp: uunet!ibmsupt!lmb		(415) 855-4460