Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90631 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-19 15:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-28 11:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 303 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 15:30 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:51 +0530
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-20 00:07 -0500
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 01:11 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 10:09 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 02:27 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 10:44 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 03:01 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 11:17 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 04:19 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 12:29 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 04:51 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 13:01 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 05:43 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 15:48 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-20 08:20 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 16:31 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-20 08:49 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-20 13:00 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 18:23 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-20 14:17 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 06:29 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 15:51 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 01:41 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-21 02:05 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 19:57 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 10:14 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-21 11:20 +0200
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-21 02:32 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 11:09 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-21 16:08 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 17:04 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 19:19 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-21 09:44 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:05 -0700
Size augments for legacy code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:22 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-20 11:10 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 13:07 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-04 14:02 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-04 22:14 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-04 14:28 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 15:58 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-04 23:29 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:21 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 08:38 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-05 09:32 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 10:30 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-05 19:01 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom crisd <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:33 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:01 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 12:07 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:09 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 12:00 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 20:25 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 20:38 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-20 20:03 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 22:31 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 14:42 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 23:21 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-20 20:49 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 12:29 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 13:03 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 16:55 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 21:40 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-21 07:16 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-21 09:47 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:37 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 03:23 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:47 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 13:38 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-23 17:53 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-24 01:52 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 11:06 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-24 16:32 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 17:27 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-24 22:58 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 18:19 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-24 23:44 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 20:57 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 02:11 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:12 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-24 17:28 -0600
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 00:37 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 16:59 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-24 19:32 -0600
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 02:35 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:14 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:13 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-24 21:54 -0600
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 08:08 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 13:09 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 08:22 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 13:50 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 11:48 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:32 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:41 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-07-25 16:35 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:50 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 14:57 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 19:01 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:14 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 20:58 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 02:14 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:16 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-24 19:35 -0600
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-24 09:38 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-24 12:58 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 17:28 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-24 23:01 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 15:13 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 18:20 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-24 23:46 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 20:59 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 02:21 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:17 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 03:34 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 08:09 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 13:21 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 11:50 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:38 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 14:59 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 05:28 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 11:52 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 08:59 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:29 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 09:39 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 15:00 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 19:09 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:19 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 03:31 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 21:20 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 08:10 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 08:12 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-27 09:09 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:57 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-28 11:15 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-28 15:18 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-30 11:59 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-28 21:02 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-30 12:09 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-31 14:07 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 16:56 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 08:57 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 11:41 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-28 11:25 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-24 15:28 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 21:00 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 02:31 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:21 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-24 19:38 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 20:18 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 08:15 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-25 07:31 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 11:59 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-25 10:31 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 18:57 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 15:04 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 19:14 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-24 22:49 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 21:12 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-24 21:58 -0600
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 08:19 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-25 08:34 -0600
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:01 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-25 08:32 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:03 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-25 00:24 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 21:01 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:08 +1200
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 08:19 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:07 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:36 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-25 10:34 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 15:05 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-25 12:18 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 16:05 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-26 01:08 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 12:29 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 09:41 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 10:50 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-26 18:09 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 14:43 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-26 20:25 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 15:33 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-26 21:05 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 16:37 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-26 13:23 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 16:39 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 14:07 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-26 14:51 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-07-26 15:17 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 23:26 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-26 20:46 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 07:52 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 08:47 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 17:13 +0200
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:03 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-27 09:57 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 16:18 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-27 07:58 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:05 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 17:18 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 16:20 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:14 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-28 08:59 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-28 13:37 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-27 09:42 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 16:20 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-26 15:31 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 23:32 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 07:58 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 08:52 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 11:21 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 13:34 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 16:31 +0200
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-27 16:20 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 23:36 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-28 14:51 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 09:26 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-28 10:54 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-27 03:12 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 23:35 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-26 20:41 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:04 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-27 16:05 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-27 08:17 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:21 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-27 09:37 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 10:11 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-27 10:21 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 11:34 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 14:46 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 22:29 +0200
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 20:32 +0200
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 00:22 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-28 13:01 +0200
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 04:46 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 12:57 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-26 16:00 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 00:08 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 14:58 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:14 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 11:55 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-20 19:47 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 13:09 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-20 20:49 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 14:35 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:01 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 08:59 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-20 09:24 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 11:28 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:38 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-20 22:10 +0200
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:16 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 19:56 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 18:46 +0530
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-21 17:20 +0000
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:03 +0530
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-21 15:39 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:04 +0530
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-22 13:44 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:38 +0530
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:36 +0530
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-23 13:08 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 13:23 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:57 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 13:03 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:06 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 14:17 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 19:45 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 13:13 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 19:23 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-21 20:02 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-22 07:57 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 00:18 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-22 08:20 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 00:49 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-22 09:31 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 10:22 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-22 12:21 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 17:15 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:46 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 16:43 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 09:17 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 18:21 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 11:05 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 22:38 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-22 13:58 -0400
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 11:14 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 02:23 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-22 12:23 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 06:44 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 09:18 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 17:00 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:48 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 10:08 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 10:26 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-22 12:12 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 12:35 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-22 14:47 +0100
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:37 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 09:50 -0700
Re: A glitch regarding the usual malloc() idiom Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-28 11:40 -0700
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 17:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmtgrc$mpg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90771 |
On 22/07/2016 12:21, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/07/16 10:22, BartC wrote:
>> Plus there is a big exception to how [sizeof] works.
>> But what's the type of the expression here: sizeof "bart"?
>> And if it is char[5], then it's puzzling as to why: sizeof *"bart" is
>> allowed.
>
> No, it's not puzzling. *"bart" is equivalent to *("bart" + 0), which is
> equivalent to "bart"[0], which is equivalent to 'b'. It's not difficult.
Take this:
char s[20];
char *t;
printf("%d\n",sizeof (s)); // 20
printf("%d\n",sizeof (t)); // 8
printf("%d\n",sizeof (*s)); // 1
printf("%d\n",sizeof (*t)); // 1
s is 20 bytes; t is 8 bytes. Obviously they must be somewhat different
types. How so then that both can be dereferenced with "*"?
>> There are a lot of inconsistencies associated with this trivial little
>> feature.
>
> You say so. I don't agree.
It's because there is another exception here, that array names don't
decay to pointers when they are a direct sizeof operand.
With an exception to this exception when the array name is indirect, as
in *s.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn0e20$frc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90789 |
On 22/07/16 17:15, BartC wrote:
> On 22/07/2016 12:21, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 22/07/16 10:22, BartC wrote:
>
>>> Plus there is a big exception to how [sizeof] works.
>
>>> But what's the type of the expression here: sizeof "bart"?
>
>>> And if it is char[5], then it's puzzling as to why: sizeof *"bart" is
>>> allowed.
>>
>> No, it's not puzzling. *"bart" is equivalent to *("bart" + 0), which is
>> equivalent to "bart"[0], which is equivalent to 'b'. It's not difficult.
>
> Take this:
>
> char s[20];
> char *t;
>
> printf("%d\n",sizeof (s)); // 20
> printf("%d\n",sizeof (t)); // 8
> printf("%d\n",sizeof (*s)); // 1
> printf("%d\n",sizeof (*t)); // 1
>
> s is 20 bytes; t is 8 bytes. Obviously they must be somewhat different
> types. How so then that both can be dereferenced with "*"?
s has type char [20], and t has type char *.
In a value context, they can both be dereferenced with * because array
names, when used in a value context, are treated as pointers to their
first elements.
You ought to have known this already. Buy a copy of K&R, and read it.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9bc81897-3640-4bac-8668-ef340e7e5ca4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90771 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 6:21:46 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Yes. In C, a byte is a unit of storage exactly wide enough to store one > character. Further, a family of dialects that was very popular for programming microcomputers in the 1990s regarded bytes as being precisely 8 bits, allowed any pair of bytes on a 16-bit boundary to be regarded as a 16-bit "short", or any group of four bytes on a 32-bit boundary to be regarded as a 32-bit "long". Although there existed non-microcomputer implementations that behaved contrary to the above, microcomputer implementations were very consistent, and code relying upon types that work as described would be considered "portable" if it could accommodate big-endian or little-endian ordering, could accommodate either 16-bit or 32-bit "int", and did not make any particular assumptions about the size of pointers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln4m7hk5p5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90762 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 22/07/2016 09:31, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> I'd pick the meaning defined by the language spec. The sizeof operator
>> yields the size in bytes of its operand. Full stop.
>
> 'bytes'?
Yes, bytes. If you have a question about that, feel free to ask it.
> Plus there is a big exception to how it works. Normally it takes the
> type of the nominal expression and returns size in char units that such
> a type would occupy.
>
> But what's the type of the expression here: sizeof "bart"?
The type of `sizeof "bart"` is size_t, and the value is 5. The type of
`"bart"` is char[5].
> If it's char*, then it gives the wrong answer (5 instead of perhaps 4 or
> 8). If it's char[5], then this is different from most other contexts as
> the array is treated as a value type.
If *what* is char*?
An array expression that is the operand of sizeof is not converted to a
pointer. Every C programmer needs to know that.
> And if it is char[5], then it's puzzling as to why: sizeof *"bart" is
> allowed.
How is it puzzling? A string literal that's the operand of unary `*`
*is* converted to a pointer, so `*"bart"` is of type char*, and
`sizeof *"bart"` is the same as `sizeof (char*)`.
> There are a lot of inconsistencies associated with this trivial little
> feature.
No.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 18:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmtkmc$4m9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90790 |
On 22/07/2016 17:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> There are a lot of inconsistencies associated with this trivial little
>> feature.
>
> No.
Here's a little list of minor issues to do with sizeof in C, and how
they compare with the equivalent in my own language:
C My lang
(1) Special rule about parentheses yes no
(2) Special treatment for array types yes no
(3) Can look like an operator yes no
(4) Can look like a function yes no
(5) sizeof * p has same shape as a * b yes no
(6) Special rule: expr can't start with cast yes no
(7) *p expression not evaluated yes yes
(8) Something funny about VLAs yes n.a.
(1) type operands need parentheses
(2) arrays are treated as value types unlike most other
expressions in the language
(6) if an expression starts with a cast, that would confuse
the parser as it would look like sizeof (T). So that isn't
allowed.
Notice that 6 out of 7 aren't an issue in the other language.
That's why I said there are a lot of inconsistencies.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnh9bhim4b.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90792 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 22/07/2016 17:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> There are a lot of inconsistencies associated with this trivial little
>>> feature.
>>
>> No.
>
> Here's a little list of minor issues to do with sizeof in C, and how
> they compare with the equivalent in my own language:
Ah, so you consider any special-case rule to be an "inconsistency".
Special-case rules make the description a bit more complicated than it
would otherwise be, but the description as a whole is still logically
consistent.
> C My lang
>
> (1) Special rule about parentheses yes no
sizeof, like any other unary operator (quibble: it's not syntactically a
"unary-operator", but it plays a very similar role) takes an expression
as its operand. The special rule is that the operand can also be a
parenthesized type name.
> (2) Special treatment for array types yes no
Yes, there's a special rule when the argument is an expression of array
type. Similar special rules apply when an expression of array type is
the operand of unary "&" and when it's a string literal in an
initializer used to initialize an array object.
> (3) Can look like an operator yes no
Yes, because it is an operator.
> (4) Can look like a function yes no
Not really, because function names are never keywords -- and if the
operand is an expression and you don't add redundant parentheses, it
*doesn't* look like a function call.
Similarly, a return statement can look like a function call if you add
redundant parentheses. An if or while statement can look look like a
function call if you use the same spacing.
> (5) sizeof * p has same shape as a * b yes no
Easily avoided with judicious use of whitespace. Never write
`sizeof * p` (unless you're being deliberately obscure).
If you insist on writing `sizeof (*p)`, you're perfectly free to
do so.
> (6) Special rule: expr can't start with cast yes no
Needed because of the syntactic similarity of a parenthesized type name
used as a cast operator and a parenthesized type name used as the
operand of sizeof. But why would you apply sizeof to a cast expression?
If you're specifying the type, you don't need a cast; just use the type
name by itself. Has this *ever* been a problem for you?
If you do need to apply sizeof to a cast expression for some reason
(perhaps it's being invoked via a macro?), just add parentheses.
> (7) *p expression not evaluated yes yes
> (8) Something funny about VLAs yes n.a.
[...]
> That's why I said there are a lot of inconsistencies.
There are a number of special-case rules (though fewer than you claim),
but the entire set of rules, special cases included, is consistent.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmu3pf$r39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90799 |
On 22/07/2016 19:05, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> (3) Can look like an operator yes no > > Yes, because it is an operator. Only because the C language considers almost everything an operator that isn't a statement. That includes =, (), [], (type), ?:, ->, dot and comma as well as sizeof. While &:address-of and *:dereference are borderline to be added to that list of 'things-that-C-considers-operators-but-aren't-quite-really'. (I prefer the narrower view of an operator being something that takes one or two operands which are both values of first-class types of the language, and that returns a first-class result. Something that could, in other words, be emulated by functions (external and foreign if necessary if the workings need to be opaque) even if you lose automatic overloading that way.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 13:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nmtmsj$c6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90790 |
On 07/22/2016 12:17 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: ... >> And if it is char[5], then it's puzzling as to why: sizeof *"bart" is >> allowed. > > How is it puzzling? A string literal that's the operand of unary `*` > *is* converted to a pointer, ... So far, so good, but ... > ... so `*"bart"` is of type char*, and > `sizeof *"bart"` is the same as `sizeof (char*)`. *"bart" has a value of 'b' and a type of char. sizeof *"bart" therefore has a value of 1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd1m5ilpq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90798 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 07/22/2016 12:17 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> ...
>>> And if it is char[5], then it's puzzling as to why: sizeof *"bart" is
>>> allowed.
>>
>> How is it puzzling? A string literal that's the operand of unary `*`
>> *is* converted to a pointer, ...
>
> So far, so good, but ...
>
>> ... so `*"bart"` is of type char*, and
>> `sizeof *"bart"` is the same as `sizeof (char*)`.
>
> *"bart" has a value of 'b' and a type of char. sizeof *"bart" therefore
> has a value of 1.
Quite correct, thank you.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 02:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4b175f3-031f-42b7-ac79-289ea013c17a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90758 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:31:09 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 22/07/16 08:49, Malcolm McLean wrote: > <snip> > > > > sizeof *array > > > > could mean > > dereference the pointer array and take its absolute value. > > No, it couldn't. > > > multiply the variable array by the variable sizeof. > > No, it couldn't. > > > take the amount of memory occupied by a pointer to an array. > > No, it couldn't. > > > take the number of elements in the first row of the array. > > No, it couldn't. > > > take the amount of memory occupied by the first element of the array. > > No, it couldn't. > That's what it does mean. Despite your familiarity with C, you've actually missed the one potential meaning which is in fact correct. > > > Now why would you naturally pick one meaning rather than another? > > I'd pick the meaning defined by the language spec. The sizeof operator > yields the size in bytes of its operand. Full stop. > To a script programmer, C is that vile low-level programming language in which horrid functions which have to be micro-efficient are written in, by people who don't wash, don't have girlfriends, and disbelieve in software patents. He doesn't like going there. But sometimes he has to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmsvnm$pbk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90763 |
On 22/07/16 10:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:31:09 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 22/07/16 08:49, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> <snip> >>> >>> sizeof *array >>> >>> could mean >>> dereference the pointer array and take its absolute value. >> >> No, it couldn't. >> >>> multiply the variable array by the variable sizeof. >> >> No, it couldn't. >> >>> take the amount of memory occupied by a pointer to an array. >> >> No, it couldn't. >> >>> take the number of elements in the first row of the array. >> >> No, it couldn't. >> >>> take the amount of memory occupied by the first element of the array. >> >> No, it couldn't. >> > That's what it does mean. No, it doesn't. > Despite your familiarity with C, you've actually missed the one potential > meaning which is in fact correct. No, I didn't. It doesn't "take" any memory at all. It /yields/ the size of its operand. >>> Now why would you naturally pick one meaning rather than another? >> >> I'd pick the meaning defined by the language spec. The sizeof operator >> yields the size in bytes of its operand. Full stop. >> > To a script programmer, C is that vile low-level programming language If you don't like it, you have some choices: 1) learn to like it; 2) don't use it; 3) put up with not liking it; 4) moan about it constantly. Option 4 is not attractive. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6890434d-b061-4cb8-b003-5feb9a694882@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90772 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:23:42 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 22/07/16 10:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > To a script programmer, C is that vile low-level programming language > > If you don't like it, you have some choices: > > 1) learn to like it; > 2) don't use it; > 3) put up with not liking it; > 4) moan about it constantly. > > Option 4 is not attractive. > Option 5 use it, but avoid those features which give it a bad name. Especially where they don't add significant expressive power. My position is no different to those who never use goto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnzip9ir2r.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90781 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:23:42 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 22/07/16 10:23, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>> > To a script programmer, C is that vile low-level programming language
>>
>> If you don't like it, you have some choices:
>>
>> 1) learn to like it;
>> 2) don't use it;
>> 3) put up with not liking it;
>> 4) moan about it constantly.
>>
>> Option 4 is not attractive.
>>
> Option 5
>
> use it, but avoid those features which give it a bad name. Especially where
> they don't add significant expressive power. My position is no different to
> those who never use goto.
Feel free to choose option 5. Please stop choosing option 4 as well.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmtfuu$ji8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90772 |
On 22/07/2016 12:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 22/07/16 10:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> take the amount of memory occupied by the first element of the array. >>> >>> No, it couldn't. >>> >> That's what it does mean. > > No, it doesn't. You don't want to be wrong do you?! >> Despite your familiarity with C, you've actually missed the one potential >> meaning which is in fact correct. > > No, I didn't. It doesn't "take" any memory at all. It /yields/ the size > of its operand. The array could already be allocated. The size of the element might be needed for a similar array, for a realloc, or for a dozen reasons. You might have had a point if the sizeof argument was a type, but I think it would still have been OK to talk about the memory occupied by an array element that doesn't yet exist. >> To a script programmer, C is that vile low-level programming language > > If you don't like it, you have some choices: > 3) put up with not liking it; > 4) moan about it constantly. 3) and 4) go together. But given that such a low-level language is necessary, it is frustrating sometimes when you see dozens of poor decisions in its design, and nothing being done about it even after decades. (Compare with Fortran.) Worse when others believe it's perfectly fine, or pretend that it is. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn0e6c$frc$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90788 |
On 22/07/16 17:00, BartC wrote: > On 22/07/2016 12:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 22/07/16 10:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>>>> take the amount of memory occupied by the first element of the array. >>>> >>>> No, it couldn't. >>>> >>> That's what it does mean. >> >> No, it doesn't. > > You don't want to be wrong do you?! I quite enjoy learning, and being wrong is a great opportunity to learn. But I'm not wrong in this case. Buy a copy of K&R, and read it. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 10:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmsnrc$uc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90751 |
On 22/07/2016 07:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 22/07/16 04:02, Malcolm McLean wrote: > <snip> >> >> Now anyone can glance at sizeof(int) and tell you what must be >> intended. 4 bytes. > > No, sizeof(int) bytes must be intended. That may be 4, or it may be 1 or > 2 or 3 or 5 or 117; but, whatever happens, it's sizeof(int) bytes. > >> sizeof *xarray ? xarray is an array that >> holds integer x values in some complicated algorithm, he can >> see that because there are lines like xarray[Nx -i] = size*j; > > No, all you can say about xarray from a line like that is that it is an > array or possibly a pointer. There is no reason to conclude that it > holds integer values. > >> But what does sizeof *xarray mean? It's cryptic. > > No, it's trivial. It means the number of bytes required to store *xarray. Unless you have: #define sizeof xarray then sizeof *xarray evaluates the square of xarray. While using: #define xarray sizeof then xarray*array means the bytes required to store *xarray (I couldn't quite manage xarray*xarray). -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 10:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmsote$43d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90760 |
On 22/07/2016 10:08, BartC wrote: > then xarray*array means the bytes required to store *xarray To store *array. (array needs to be some pointer type.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmsv36$ndk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90760 |
On 22/07/16 10:08, BartC wrote: > On 22/07/2016 07:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 22/07/16 04:02, Malcolm McLean wrote: <snip> >> >>> But what does sizeof *xarray mean? It's cryptic. >> >> No, it's trivial. It means the number of bytes required to store *xarray. > > Unless you have: > > #define sizeof xarray Don't be ridiculous. Please. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmt0es$s1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90770 |
On 22/07/2016 12:12, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/07/16 10:08, BartC wrote:
>> On 22/07/2016 07:57, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 22/07/16 04:02, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>>> But what does sizeof *xarray mean? It's cryptic.
>>>
>>> No, it's trivial. It means the number of bytes required to store
>>> *xarray.
>>
>> Unless you have:
>>
>> #define sizeof xarray
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Please.
Not so ridiculous:
#define sizeof(a) trapsizeof(__LINE__)
int trapsizeof(int line){
printf("sizeof used on line %d\n",line);
return 0;
}
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmt866$mc1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90773 |
On 22/07/16 12:35, BartC wrote: > On 22/07/2016 12:12, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 22/07/16 10:08, BartC wrote: >>> On 22/07/2016 07:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 22/07/16 04:02, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> <snip> >>>> >>>>> But what does sizeof *xarray mean? It's cryptic. >>>> >>>> No, it's trivial. It means the number of bytes required to store >>>> *xarray. >>> >>> Unless you have: >>> >>> #define sizeof xarray >> >> Don't be ridiculous. Please. > > Not so ridiculous: > > #define sizeof(a) trapsizeof(__LINE__) Still ridiculous. sizeof is a keyword. Don't try to redefine keywords using macro substitution. It's Just Plain Stupid. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web