On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > 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
> Reread my second to last paragraph. I'm saying the same thing > that you are. How can you possibly be saying the same thing, when you are saying the exact opposite (You: A != B may be true, Thomas: A == B must be true)? You're saying: sizeof(struct foo) != (((char *)&fee[1]) - ((char *)&fee[0])) which would imply that end-padding is not included in sizeof(struct foo), when it must be, otherwise malloc(n * sizeof(struct foo)) would not allocate enough memory for an array of n elements of struct foo. -- David Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The future just ain't what it used to be" To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
