Is &a[NTHINGS] legal

[Peter da Silva]

In article <4023 at killer.UUCP>, richardh at killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes:
> In article <1988May5.194916.1971 at utzoo.uucp>, henry at utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > This isn't imaginary.  I know of at least one machine (not a common one)
> > in which pointer arithmetic was strictly offset arithmetic, with no carry
> > into the segment part; I don't remember whether overflow was trapped.

> This will be the case in ... protected USE32 mode of the 80386 ...

On the other hand I very much suspect that any useful 'C' compiler on the
386 will blow off that segment stuff and just stick everything in one big
segment. In which case a single pad at the end will solve the problem.