Question about void pointers

[raphfrk]

Is this valid?

int a[20];
void *b;

b = (void *)a; // b points to a[0]

b += 5*sizeof(*a); // b points to a[5]

a[5] = 100;

printf( "%d\n" , *((int *)b) ); // prints 100

If so, if a had been a struct, would it still work?

Is there a possibility that the array could contain some padding, so
rather than sizeof, the assignment would be

b += 5*( (void *)(&(a[1])) - (void *)(&(a[0]));

which seems more more complex.

Would any padding be incorporated into sizeof anyway?

[James Kuyper]

Tim Rentsch wrote:

Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?= <tr*****@gmail. comwrites:

>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:33:35 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:

>>I realize some people think the formal language of the standard allows
printf() to use different rules than va_arg. Other people, however,
think the formal language of the standard requires printf() to use the
same rules as va_arg.

Could you give a few messages where people try to explain where that is?
I've seen it discussed often enough, but have always thought there was
agreement that the standard is missing the text to require this.

Unfortunately I've lost the references since reading them. (<aside>Is
it my imagination or is searching Google groups harder than it used to
be?</aside>) But I remember that both Doug Gwyn and Larry Jones
contributed to the thread discussing printf() vis-a-vis other variadic
functions.

It's not your imagination. Among other problems, when searching for a
message meeting certain criteria, Google no longer provides you with a
link to that particular message, only a link to the thread in which that
message appears. If that thread contains a few thousand messages (as has
been the case for a couple of my searches), this is pretty much useless.
Even for threads with only a dozen messages, it's pretty annoying.

The most recent relevant thread that I could find was

<http://groups.google.c om/g/6137feeb/t/a656169cb5941cb f/d/5091258077e0a3b 8>

The second message of that thread gives my take on the issue. Both Doug
Gwyn and Larry Jones did participate in the discussion, but only to a
limited extent. Larry Jones' response disagrees with mine.