Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ptsfa!lll-lcc!seismo!husc6!rutgers!dayton!viper!john
From: john@viper.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pointer Comparison and Portability
Message-ID: <608@viper.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Mar-87 04:21:11 EST
Article-I.D.: viper.608
Posted: Mon Mar  2 04:21:11 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Mar-87 19:09:45 EST
References: <814@cullvax.UUCP> <2000@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley)
Organization: DynaSoft Systems
Lines: 19

In article <2000@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
 >>john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley) writes:
 >>> The byte of memory addressed by q[0] and p[17] would
 >>> be the exact same byte, ...............
 >
 >Actually, of course, it is p[16] which is equal to q[0], and &p[17] which is
 >not a correct pointer.  Isn't zero-based array indexing wonderful? (:-)

But Frank, haven'y you heard?  Intel is switching all future 80x86 chips
to seperate their segments by 17 bytes to expand the addressing space....

  (just kiding... ;^)

Frank is, of course, correct...  (boy, is my face red...)

--- 
John Stanley (john@viper.UUCP)
Software Consultant - DynaSoft Systems
UUCP: ...{amdahl,ihnp4,rutgers}!{meccts,dayton}!viper!john