Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: sizeof a struc field
Message-ID: <11278@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 14 Oct 89 03:34:31 GMT
References: <7710@microsoft.UUCP> <44200027@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <44200027@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> davies@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
>If it is "officially meaningless" to use (type *)0->field,
>would it be "officially meaningful" to instead substitute
>(type *)1->field?

You mean ((type *)1)->field.
This is explicitly implementation-dependent.
Maybe it works and maybe it breaks horribly
(as it would on most word-oriented machines).