🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4k611a$aln@solutions.solon.com>
           clgonsal@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
           "Carl Laurence Gonsalves" writes:

> >Very little since MAXINT isn't defined. :-) Perhaps if you were to include
> >limits.h and use INT_MAX instead. If you want to add a bit of interest to
> >the problem you could ask the same question about:
> >
> >#include <stddef.h>
> >#include <limits.h>
> >
> >    size_t l;
> >    short i = SHRT_MAX;
> >
> >    l = sizeof(++i);
>
>Whatever the case, one can always say l==sizeof(i) (the actual numerical
>value is implementation dependant),

Right (at least where i is a scalar). Compare that with:

       l = sizeof(+i);

to see the possible pitfall.

>and i remains unchanged from it's
>initial value, whether that's MAXINT, INT_MAX, SHRT_MAX, FOO, 5, etc.

or even uninitialised.

>I think the original poster's point was that the above code does not change
>the value of i, which is not obvious unless you know that sizeof does not
>evaluate it's operand.

No doubt! Some other curious examples are:

       l = sizeof(i/0);
       l = sizeof sizeof i;

       int a[10];
       l = sizeof a[100];
      
-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------