Is &a[NTHINGS] legal

[Theodore Stevens Norvell]

In article <11289 at mimsy.UUCP> chris at mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>In article <12074 at tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc at tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
>(Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>>Is it legal to apply the & (address of) operator to an array
>>element that is non-existent?
>>	for (p = a; p < &a[NTHINGS]; p++)	/* 1 */
>>Will 1 be guaranteed to work in ANSI-C?
>
>Yes.  If necessary, the compiler will put a one-byte (or word or
>whatever) shim after the array in that array's address space, so
>that &a[NTHINGS] will be meaningful.

But, doesn't the draft (my copy is from November) also say that p+i
(where p is a pointer) can only be dereferenced if it points to the
same array as does p? Since &a[NTHINGS] translates to &(*(a+NTHINGS))
and a+NTHINGS does not point to the same array as does a, the dereference
is undefined.  This allows array bounds checking in ANSI C.
Try     for(p = a; p < a+NTHINGS; p++)  /* 3 */