From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:38:22 -0400
To: a.verardo@tecmav.com, 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <83849e7a0112eb8132650c2b76fa3dea@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A5CB1C2.2000805@tecmav.com>
References: <abc85ad6c854d3fc457396f6143aebc0@quanstro.net>
	<4A5C8F93.6090603@tecmav.com>
	<7144845a3c658a8194be95e64d69486f@coraid.com>
	<4A5CB1C2.2000805@tecmav.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] C compiler question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 204b8fc2-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> erik quanstrom wrote:
> >> The point is how to compute the offset(s) of the last field at compile /
> >> run time.
> >>
> >
> > the offset of the last field is not in question.  i believe you mean the size?
> >
> It's really the same info.

it is not.  the size and offset are different things.

> offset(B) = 100,  &(A.B[7]) == address(A) + 100 + 7*sizeof(int).
> The compiler accept the dirty but legal expression  A.B[-3]  because it
> can compute
> the address (or the offset with respect the beginnig of "A") of the B
> "-3" cell.

this is completely beside the point and furthermore the sizeof A.B never
enters into the picture.

- erik