Thomas Moestl wrote:
> > He's making the valid point that for:
> >
> >       struct foo *fee;
> >
> > It's possible that:
> >
> >       sizeof(struct foo) != (((char *)&fee[1]) - ((char *)&fee[0]))
> No, I do not. In fact, the opposite:
>         sizeof(struct foo) = (((char *)&fee[1]) - ((char *)&fee[0]))
> _must_ always be true, since it is legal to compute the size of
> storage needed for an n-element array of struct foo by using
> (sizeof(struct foo) * n).
> My point was that, because of the above, any padding that might be
> required between the first and last member of two struct foo's
> immediately following each other must be _included_ in struct foo,
> after the last element.

Reread my second to last paragraph.  I'm saying the same thing
that you are.  In my third to last paragrap, I pointed to an
example for directory entries that ensures end-pad independence
(I wrote that code).

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to