home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16 / NN_1992_16.iso / spool / comp / std / c / 2397 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-07-31  |  1.3 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!richard
  2. From: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
  3. Newsgroups: comp.std.c
  4. Subject: Re: Character arrays in structures and address alignment -- any standard?
  5. Message-ID: <7039@skye.ed.ac.uk>
  6. Date: 31 Jul 92 17:08:14 GMT
  7. References: <Bs5pMJ.3nM@twwells.com> <7022@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jul31.010941.7282@crd.ge.com>
  8. Organization: Templi Resurgentes Equites Synarchici
  9. Lines: 22
  10.  
  11. In article <1992Jul31.010941.7282@crd.ge.com> volpe@ausable.crd.ge.com writes:
  12. >|> *If* the standard allows "unnecessary" padding, this program is not
  13. >|> strictly conforming.
  14.  
  15. >PRO: "But *if* unnecessary padding is ok, *then* the program isn't
  16. >      Strictly Conforming, *therefore* the as-if rule still applies, 
  17. >      *therefore* unnecessary padding is ok!"
  18.  
  19. You're over-interpreting my statement.  I wasn't trying to prove that
  20. unnecessary padding is ok.  I was merely pointing out that it couldn't
  21. be a strictly conforming program that behaved differently under the
  22. two interpretations, because under one of them it wouldn't be strictly
  23. conforming.
  24.  
  25. It appears to be the case that you can't write a strictly conforming
  26. program that prints the value of any implementation-defined parameter.
  27.  
  28. -- Richard
  29. -- 
  30. Richard Tobin,
  31. AI Applications Institute,                                R.Tobin@ed.ac.uk
  32. Edinburgh University.
  33.