Article View: comp.std.c
Article #1791Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary
From: Henry Spencer
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 1990 03:32
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 1990 03:32
20 lines
1519 bytes
1519 bytes
In article <12672@ogicse.ogi.edu> daniels@ogicse.ogi.edu (Scott David Daniels) writes: >However, the preceding example is really no different. If we presume the >fortuitous ``to-be-filled-in-later size variable,'' the return statement >of the preceding example may load the return value register (or whatever >convention the compiler prefers for results) from the same variable... Not unless you're willing to work hard at fudging a number of other things. ANSI C does insist that the result of sizeof be a compile-time number, and so it is legitimate to use a sizeof in (e.g.) dimensioning another array. You can postpone everything to runtime if you really work at it, as witness the existence of C interpreters, but in a traditional compiled approach, you really do have to evaluate sizeof at compile time to type-check things like: char *p = sizeof(a) - sizeof(b); which is legal if and only if the two sizeofs have the same value! -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1990Oct6.033209.10055@zoo.toronto.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henryReferences:
<13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3206@mcrware.UUCP> <470@taumet.com> <1990Oct5.173314.28454@zoo.toronto.edu> <12672@ogicse.ogi.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.std.c Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary Message-ID: <1990Oct6.033209.10055@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3206@mcrware.UUCP> <470@taumet.com> <1990Oct5.173314.28454@zoo.toronto.edu> <12672@ogicse.ogi.edu> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 03:32:09 GMT