NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/comp/std/c/2586

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-08 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!ucbvax!jit081.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: [e-mail] (08-Sep-1992 0914)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: struct hack
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:14:51 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 27

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clive Feather) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail](04-Sep-1992 1639) writes:
>> You can't go past the end of an array object.  But if malloc() or some other
>> variable has defined the end of the actual array object, then the + operator
>> can get you that far, regardless of the declared type that some other array
>> variable had before getting flattened to a pointer.

>But there is an intepretation that says that, given
>    int a [5][5];
>the access "a [1][6]" is illegal, because it goes past the bounds of the
>array "a [1]". In other words, the declared type of the array does
>restrict what can happen to a pointer derived from it.

Is that an actual interpretation ruling or was that only someone's posted
opinion on Usenet?  The standard certainly does define [], +, and * in
sufficiently unambiguous terms.

If you have the actual texts of the interpretation rulings, would you
please kindly post them?

I am also curious as to the "officially" correct thing to do when an
interpretation ruling contradicts the standard (whether correcting an
error that everyone agrees was an error, or otherwise).
--
Norman Diamond       [e-mail]
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
"Yeah -- bad wiring.  That was probably it.  Very bad."