🚀 go-pugleaf

diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com (03-Sep-1992 1325) writes:
>In article <PINKAS.92Sep2173635@skywalker.intel.com> pinkas@skywalker.intel.com (Israel Pinkas) writes:
>>The variable length struct is a hack.  There is nothing in the language
>>that prevents the compiler from performing bounds checking on accesses to
>>name.
>
>Uh, nothing except the standard's definitions of [], unary *, and binary +
>operators.  :-R rhetoric.
>Bounds checking is not allowed to affect output of a valid but ugly program.

Could you flesh this argument out? I had the impression that the last time
it came up here the conclusion was that this trick was not sanctioned
(i.e., a bounds checker could fail). After all, 3.3.6 "Additive Operators"
says that you aren't guaranteed to go past the end of an array object,
so if you start with the trailing array (in the struct) you can't go past
its end. (You could if you used a different "handle" for the malloc return
value.)
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]