Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!ballou
From: ballou@brahms.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: bytes don't fill words
Message-ID: <815@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sat, 24-Jan-87 18:47:07 EST
Article-I.D.: cartan.815
Posted: Sat Jan 24 18:47:07 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Jan-87 05:49:17 EST
References: <4603@watmath.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: ballou@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Kenneth R. Ballou)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley
Lines: 29

In article <4603@watmath.UUCP> rbutterworth@watmath.UUCP (Ray Butterworth) writes:
>If it doesn't do so already, the ANSI C standard should explicitly
>state the following:
>
>1) BITS_PER_WORD%BITS_PER_BYTE need not necessarily be 0.

	I don't see how this can be, in view of section 1.5.  The last
sentence of the definition of "byte" reads:

	Except for bit-fields, objects are composed of contiguous
	sequences of one or more bytes, the number, order, and
	encoding of which are implementation-defined.

>3) The behaviour of functions memcmp(), memcpy(), etc. is
>undefined if the two arguments are not pointing at similarly
>aligned data.

	Again, I am missing something here.  Doesn't the
requirement that "It shall be possible to express the address
of each individual byte of an object uniquely" take care of
this?



--------
Kenneth R. Ballou			ARPA:  ballou@brahms.berkeley.edu
Department of Mathematics		UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!brahms!ballou
University of California
Berkeley, California  94720