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