🚀 go-pugleaf

In article: <4j9lfh$o2l@narses.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de>  
hfst@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de (Hans Steffani) writes:
> Steve Rencontre <Steve@dstrip.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
> >Oh yes it can!
> 
> >	...	
> >	int var1, var2;
> >	int *var1p = &var1;
> >	var1p[-1] = 0;
> >	...
> 
> Post this to comp.lang.c[.moderated] and you will be told that this
> leads to undefined behavior and something like that. 

Well my newsreader doesn't know how to post to moderated groups, and I'm 
too lazy to do it by hand :-), but anyway...

It may be undefined by the *language*, but then so is the size of an 
int! However, this very behaviour is relied on by stdargs/varargs in 
order to make variable parameter lists possible. Yes, it's 
implementation-dependent -- but that doesn't mean it results in 
unpredictable or unreliable behaviour within that implementation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rencontre               |  steve@dstrip.demon.co.uk (business) 
If it works, it's obsolete.   |  steveren@cix.compulink.co.uk (private)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------