Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg
From: rhg@cpsolv.UUCP (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Zero Length Arrays Allowed in C Standard?
Message-ID: <463@cpsolv.UUCP>
Date: 8 Dec 89 19:21:16 GMT
References: <2298@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <11715@smoke.BRL.MIL> <480@codonics.COM> <1989Dec2.210042.12668@twwells.com> <8129@cg-atla.UUCP> <1989Dec5.112553.24087@twwells.com> <11963@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <11751@smoke.BRL.MIL> <UZTerlu00VcJEDulRd@andrew.cmu.ed
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas
Lines: 20

Sender: 
Reply-To: rhg@cpsolv.uucp (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas
Keywords: 

In article <UZTerlu00VcJEDulRd@andrew.cmu.edu> jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
>Note that it is provable that the char pointer (foo->baz + 1) points
>within the object returned by malloc.

Unfortunately, it is not provable that the char pointer(foo->baz + 1)
points within the sub-object baz.  Hence, the behavior is undefined
(X3J11/88-158, 3.3.6, page 48, lines 24-27). 

-- 
===============================================================================
| Richard H. Gumpertz rhg%cpsolv@uunet.uu.NET -or- ...uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg |
| Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749      |
===============================================================================