Is &a[NTHINGS] legal

[Peter da Silva]

In article <164 at atpal.UUCP>, tneff at atpal.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> In article <778 at .UUCP> peter at ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >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...

> Any *truly* useful 'C' compiler on the 386 will let the programmer
> choose his own segmentation model like a big boy.

Why is this any more important than (say) allowing people to choose
which register to use for subroutine linkage on the PDP-11 or 68000?
This is something that's much more important (at least if you want
your 'C' to interface with other PDP-11 languages).

> Accessing big
> segments is a sine qua non, but forcibly limiting people to the "flat"
> model would be fatal in the marketplace.

Why? What reason could you possibly have, within the lifespan of the
80386, for using anything but a flat model in 'C'? 'C' doesn't apply
very well to intel segments in the first place (if you don't believe
me, explain "memory models": there are languages that handle segments
much more gracefully (PL/M-86, for example), but 'C' falls flat on its
face), and with 32 bits of address space per segment the need for even
dealing with them goes away.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
-- Phone: 713-274-5180. Remote UUCP: uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter.