Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!caip!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!we53!sw013b!dj3b1!killer!ndmce!pollux!bobkat!pedz
From: pedz@bobkat.UUCP (Pedz Thing)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Block Initialization; structs and sizeof
Message-ID: <192@bobkat.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Oct-86 17:14:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: bobkat.192
Posted: Wed Oct 15 17:14:40 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Oct-86 05:48:40 EDT
References: <586@calma.UUCP> <1971@dciem.UUCP>
Reply-To: pedz@bobkat.UUCP (Pedz Thing)
Distribution: net
Organization: Digital Lynx; Dallas, TX
Lines: 16

In article <1971@dciem.UUCP> msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) says that in
effect (&variable + sizeof(variable) > &nextvariable) is possible.
While I understand his argument and reasoning, I hope that this is not
true.  This would break many things it seems to me.  In particular,
varargs would be a very difficult thing to write since the "nextarg"
(or whatever it is called) would have to know the type of the next
argument in order to figure out the padding.  (I guess the compiler
could make an exception in the case of parameters passed on the
stack.)  It just seems like frequently code assumes that the
sizeof(variable) is exactly equal to the offset of that variable from
the next one.
-- 
Perry Smith
ctvax ---\
megamax --- bobkat!pedz
pollux---/