🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep07.104932.20060@x.co.uk> clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) writes:
>In article <9209040741.AA16120@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com(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       diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
"Yeah -- bad wiring.  That was probably it.  Very bad."