Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!ditmela!yarra!bohra!ejp
From: ejp@bohra.cpg.oz (Esmond Pitt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pointer arithmetic and comparisons.
Message-ID: <232@bohra.cpg.oz>
Date: 10 Dec 89 23:47:58 GMT
References: <257ECDFD.CDD@marob.masa.com>
Reply-To: ejp@bohra.UUCP (Esmond Pitt)
Organization: Computer Power Group, Melb, Australia
Lines: 31

In article <257ECDFD.CDD@marob.masa.com> daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) writes:
>
>One method I use to avoid overflow while filling a buffer is to set a
>pointer to the address of the last element (&buffer[last]), then compare
>the current buffer position to the end pointer, testing that "current"
>is never greater than "end" ...
>
>This method has never bitten me on Unix/Xenix/*nix systems of any
>flavor, on machines ranging from 286's to 68K's to Sparcs.  Now, in an
>attempt to port to MSDOS/Turbo-C, this method breaks.

That's because the last element is not &buffer[last] but &buffer[last-1],
and so you should test for <= &buffer[last-1], not < &buffer[last].
You are incrementing a pointer to point outside the object, and this is
not guaranteed to work under _any_ implementation of C. Your code
should read:

some_function(char *buffer, int len)
{
	char *p = buffer;
	char *e = &buffer[len-1];

	while ((*p++ = getchar()) != EOF && p <= e) {
	...
	}

	...
}
-- 
Esmond Pitt, Computer Power Group
ejp@bohra.cpg.oz