Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:20:48 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <ln1t2ie4bj.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <lnr3apmfbl.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nmn0uu$i8g$1@dont-email.me> <4cd22745-22ad-4ac7-bdba-39ffa1c75e13@googlegroups.com> <lna8hcmgux.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <7d995799-5f23-4784-a62e-ea423de00650@googlegroups.com> <lnk2ggkszv.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <36f1e05e-609e-4e0e-8819-86feee1f4d8c@googlegroups.com> <ln7fcflv9v.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <c2cbf93e-1479-4cde-98b2-3027299c2c8e@googlegroups.com> <57933a73.4812875@news.xs4all.nl> <f21ce6b1-3be2-422e-8511-c84d5b13e757@googlegroups.com> <5793c8e5.2941812@news.xs4all.nl> <b80e8423-7bb0-432b-894a-8cd6bb038ea6@googlegroups.com> <nn0p0u$jgm$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <87oa5n97rz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nn2lht$lsh$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <e6800575-389b-4789-8c8d-a2526e30d68e@googlegroups.com> <nn3bud$4ps$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <nn3dsc$dvk$1@dont-email.me> <lneg6ieadw.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nn3tmk$i9s$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="28614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18mZg+WrAypiWDdfXYAfaFw"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:g5d4zKSUW/VcvFmBGkId09YCOqk= sha1:2GOmW+VYoO/jMK6JDO5wjNflyKE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:90960

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 25/07/16 03:09, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Don't be such an ass. James Kuyper is a very experienced and
>>> knowledgeable C programmer. Of course he knows the difference between
>>> bits and bytes. But in this case it doesn't matter, because padding
>>> bytes are just rather CHAR_BIT-wide collections of padding bits. His
>>> point stands either way.
>>
>> Richard, I regret that I must correct you.
>
> Go for it. :-)
>
>> The standard does not use
>> the term "padding bytes" when discussing storage within an integer
>> object that does not contribute to its value.
>
> Yes, I know that. It does use the term "padding bytes" in connection 
> with unions and structs, but not in connection with integers. But the 
> term "padding bytes" is neither important nor indeed relevant. The claim 
> Mr Stuckle made is that sizeof(short) cannot exceed sizeof(int), and it 
> is this claim that I am addressing.

Oh, well of course he's wrong about that.

Sounds like the issue of "padding bytes" was introduced (deliberately
or not) as a red herring.  There can be arbitrarily many padding
*bits* (which may or may not form bytes).

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"