Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: char (*a)[]  (was: Style [++i vs i++])
Message-ID: <6450@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 20-Sep-87 22:29:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6450
Posted: Sun Sep 20 22:29:21 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Sep-87 04:16:58 EDT
References: <8298@brl-adm.ARPA> <587@cblpe.ATT.COM> <189@xyzzy.UUCP> <8655@mimsy.UUCP> <10758@orchid.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 15

In article <10758@orchid.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@orchid.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes:
>Using
>    for (p = &foo[9]; p != foo; p--)
>gets around this problem of the incorrect inequality.

	for ( p = &foo[LIMIT]; p-- != foo; )
would be more correct, since it includes the case of &foo[0]
and excludes the case right after the end of the array.

>The question is, does an expression, such as "p--", that generates
>an illegal address violate the standard if that address is never
>used as an address?

Not according to current wording.  This was reaffirmed at the
Framingham meeting, in the course of revising related wording.