Hier mal ein kleiner Auszug aus dem C99-Standard
Zitat Zitat von ISO/IEC 9899
6.5.3.2 Address and indirection operators
Constraints
1 The operand of the unary & operator shall be either a function designator, the result of a
[] or unary * operator, or an lvalue that designates an object that is not a bit-field and is
not declared with the register storage-class specifier.

2 The operand of the unary * operator shall have pointer type.

Semantics
3 The unary & operator yields the address of its operand. If the operand has type ‘‘type’’,
the result has type ‘‘pointer to type’’. If the operand is the result of a unary * operator,
neither that operator nor the & operator is evaluated and the result is as if both were
omitted, except that the constraints on the operators still apply and the result is not an
lvalue. Similarly, if the operand is the result of a [] operator, neither the & operator nor
the unary * that is implied by the [] is evaluated and the result is as if the & operator
were removed and the [] operator were changed to a + operator. Otherwise, the result is
a pointer to the object or function designated by its operand.

4 The unary * operator denotes indirection. If the operand points to a function, the result is
a function designator; if it points to an object, the result is an lvalue designating the
object. If the operand has type ‘‘pointer to type’’, the result has type ‘‘type’’. If an
invalid value has been assigned to the pointer, the behavior of the unary * operator is
undefined.
Da steht viel, aber eben nicht, daß sich der & Operator bei einem Array anders verhalten sollte als bei einem normalen Pointer. Das mag zwar bei den meisten Compilern so sein, aber es steht eben nicht im Standard (oder wenn, habe ich die entsprechende Stelle übersehen). Wenn man also in seinem Programm davon ausgeht, daß "ArrayName" und "&ArrayName" den selben Wert liefern, funktioniert es vielleicht nicht mehr wenn man auf einen anderen Compiler umsteigt.