sizeof a struc field

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <44200027 at uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> davies at uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
>If it is "officially meaningless" to use (type *)0->field,
>would it be "officially meaningful" to instead substitute
>(type *)1->field?

You mean ((type *)1)->field.
This is explicitly implementation-dependent.
Maybe it works and maybe it breaks horribly
(as it would on most word-oriented machines).