Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: C puzzle
Keywords: arrays, compilers
Message-ID: <19260@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 89 02:31:46 GMT
References: <404@opusys.UUCP> <1614@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 12

In article <1614@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> dfp@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (david.f.prosser) writes:
>You are correct that the length of the array is only necessary
>in this example if the "x++;" statement is included.  Pointers
>to unspecified-sized arrays are valid in the pANS.

So they are.  Oops, disregard parts of my previous followup....

(I still think they ought to be an error, although this would prevent
taking the address of an array of unknown size.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris