Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pointers (and objects?) just after an array object.
Message-ID: <1989Dec17.061617.5775@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <448@longway.TIC.COM> <450@longway.TIC.COM> <15364@haddock.ima.isc.com> <809@prles2.UUCP> <1989Dec8.161820.24804@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1989Dec11.181631.3864@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <465@cpsolv.UUCP> <11809@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1147.2588ce34@cs <1159.258b86f8@csc.anu.oz>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 06:16:17 GMT

In article <1159.258b86f8@csc.anu.oz> bdm659@csc.anu.oz writes:
>"This stipulation [allowing a pointer to point just after an array] merely
>requires that every object be followed by one byte whose address is
>representable."
>
>I don't see any reason why a byte must follow the object.  An implementation
>could easily make a special case in the internal representation...

The quoted text would perhaps be better phrased as "This stipulation imposes
no penalty worse than requiring that every object be followed by one byte
whose address is representable."  I don't see any demand that there be such
a byte, just a rather clumsy wording of explanatory material.
-- 
1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972:  human |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu