Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!bellcore!faline!ulysses!hector!jss
From: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Order of fields (Was: Arrays of Unknown Length in Structures)
Message-ID: <3043@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: Tue, 29-Sep-87 14:08:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.3043
Posted: Tue Sep 29 14:08:07 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Oct-87 01:45:37 EDT
References: <243@mit-prep.ARPA> <1044@ius1.cs.cmu.edu>
Sender: daemon@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: jss@hector (Jerry Schwarz)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 18

In article <1044@ius1.cs.cmu.edu> edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP writes:
>
>   Let me give you a reason of why this should not be "kosher".
>
>  	    I don't think it is  required in C that the fields in a structure
>	    be phyically ordered in the same ordering they are declared.

But it is.  The version of the ANSI standard I have at hand (slightly
out of date but probably unchanged on this point) says(section
3.5.2.1):

    Within a structure object, the non-bit-field members and the
    units in which bitfields reside have addresses that increase in
    the order in which they declared.

K&R said the same thing in different words.

Jerry Schwarz