Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: comp.std.c
Keywords: ANSI C, hardware protection, out-of-bounds pointers
Message-ID: <10914@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 2 Sep 89 23:08:33 GMT
References: <426@maytag.waterloo.edu> <10884@smoke.BRL.MIL> <619@targon.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <619@targon.UUCP> andre@targon.UUCP (andre) writes:
>Does this mean that on OS/2 on an '386 with a buffer gotten from
>the system, the compiler sees to it that the char *head does never!
>ends up in an address register?

I'm not familiar enough with that environment to answer definitively,
but I don't understand the problem.  The whole reason the Standard
does not guarantee array[0]-1 is to accommodate such address space issues.
The reason it does guarantee array[last]+1 is because otherwise looping
would be painful; since only a single byte (or maybe word) extra is
required at the end, the compiler should arrange for the extra slop
and all will be well.