Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: sizeof a struc field
Message-ID: <225800231@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 89 15:42:00 GMT
References: <7710@microsoft.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:microsoft.UUCP:7710:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:225800231:000:532
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Oct 27 10:42:00 1989



>However, the argument is persuasive only because the constant 0 has a
>special meaning in C.  We know a null pointer does not point to an
>object.  But what happens if we do the following?

>        sizeof ((type *)1)->member
            

How about
/* suitable definition of type and member here */
void *a;

size_t b = sizeof(((type *)a)->member);

type *c;
a = malloc(b);  
c = (type * )a;
Somehow this begins to look awfully legal to me. What if the malloc
was in another source file that was not linked in?

Doug McDonald