Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: setjmp and typedef'd arrays; thoughts on &array Message-ID: <986@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 23:32:05 EDT Article-I.D.: bbncca.986 Posted: Fri Oct 5 23:32:05 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 07:09:18 EDT References: <22197810.8e4@apollo.uucp> <981@bbncca.ARPA> <524@wjh12.UUCP> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 20 When I first cut my teeth on C, in both the V6 and V7 Ritchie PDP-11 C compilers, &array was accepted as a valid construct, and one which had quite different semantics under pointer arithmetic from merely the array name alone: if we have char x[10]; x + 1 points to the second char in the array, equivalent to &x[1]. &x + 1 points to the memory address FOLLOWING the entire array, equivalent to &x[10]. That is, the size of the object pointed to is equal to the size of the entire array. Checking our present compiler, which is derived from the Ritchie PDP-11 V7 compiler, it behaves in this manner. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA