Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit533!diamond From: diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: call to revolt Message-ID: <1991Jun27.032834.13244@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Date: 27 Jun 91 03:28:34 GMT References: <992@baby.and.nl> <782@taumet.com> <4880@inews.intel.com> Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo Lines: 19 In article <4880@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@bishop.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >>>In article rabson@physics.ubc.ca (David Rabson) writes: >>>> void *thing; >>>> ((int *)thing)++; >This'll do it, too: > thing += (int *)1; Oh no, not again. I thought addition of pointers had been beaten to death. >(see ANSI X3.159-1989, sec. 3.3.16.2, p. 55, ll. 20-21, and >footnote 51 at the bottom of p. 51, for proof...) Well, the page numbers are different in the last draft version, and footnote 51 has nothing to do with it, but I still see nothing that hints at the legality of adding two pointers. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it. Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.