Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!msb
From: msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Block Initialization; structs and sizeof
Message-ID: <1982@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Oct-86 12:30:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1982
Posted: Fri Oct 17 12:30:42 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Oct-86 13:18:29 EDT
References: <586@calma.UUCP> <1971@dciem.UUCP> <192@bobkat.UUCP>
Reply-To: msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Distribution: net
Organization: NTT Systems Inc., c/o DCIEM, Toronto
Lines: 15
Summary: 

Perry Smith (pedz@bobkat.UUCP) writes:
> In article <1971@dciem.UUCP> msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) says that in
> effect (&variable + sizeof(variable) > &nextvariable) is possible.

This should, of course, be ((char *) &variable + sizeof(variable) >
(char *) &nextvariable).  I'm not saying that Perry doesn't know this,
since he said "in effect", but just reminding anyone who might be fooled.

> While I understand his argument and reasoning, I hope that this is not
> true.

Agreed.  And no one has yet come forth to say that it is true on their
machine, so maybe it is in fact never true.

Mark Brader