Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!ficc!peter@ficc.UUCP
From: peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Is &a[NTHINGS] legal
Message-ID: <778@.UUCP>
Date: 16 May 88 15:47:39 GMT
References: <12074@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, <10716@steinmetz.ge.com> <4023@killer.UUCP>
Sender: peter@ficc.UUCP
Organization: SCADA
Lines: 13

In article <4023@killer.UUCP>, richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes:
> In article <1988May5.194916.1971@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > This isn't imaginary.  I know of at least one machine (not a common one)
> > in which pointer arithmetic was strictly offset arithmetic, with no carry
> > into the segment part; I don't remember whether overflow was trapped.

> This will be the case in ... protected USE32 mode of the 80386 ...

On the other hand I very much suspect that any useful 'C' compiler on the
386 will blow off that segment stuff and just stick everything in one big
segment. In which case a single pad at the end will solve the problem.