Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Steve Keller <keller@no.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t |
| Date | 2011-04-30 08:40 +0200 |
| Organization | Netfront http://www.netfront.net/ |
| Message-ID | <ipgasf$1q5b$1@adenine.netfront.net> (permalink) |
This is a style question. To iterate through an array I often use
code similar to the following:
#define ASIZE(a) (sizeof(a) / sizeof((a)[0])
int a[] = { ... };
void foo(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < ASIZE(a); i++)
/* do something with a[i]. */
}
With all warnings enabled, gcc will warn about a comparison between
signed and unsigned integer types, because sizeof() yields a size_t
which is unsigned. To eliminate that warning I could use unsigned int
or size_t for the variable i. But IMO int feels most natural and
size_t might have unwanted overhead, if it is a large integer type and
I know that the array size will be very small (i.e. less than INT_MAX
elements).
So, what type for i do you prefer in cases like this?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Steve Keller <keller@no.invalid> - 2011-04-30 08:40 +0200
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2011-04-30 09:27 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2011-04-30 12:55 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-01 10:34 +1200
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2011-04-30 19:33 +0200
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-01 09:03 +1200
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2011-04-30 14:34 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-01 10:37 +1200
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2011-04-30 19:41 -0400
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-30 17:46 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2011-05-01 21:27 -0400
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-30 22:23 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-01 14:16 +0100
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-05-01 10:31 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-01 12:25 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-01 20:00 -0400
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-02 10:17 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-02 08:37 +0100
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 06:02 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Peter Nilsson <airia@acay.com.au> - 2011-05-03 15:55 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Luca Forlizzi <luca.forlizzi@gmail.com> - 2011-05-05 02:38 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-05 06:37 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 16:10 +0000
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-05 09:35 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 11:22 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Peter Nilsson <airia@acay.com.au> - 2011-05-05 16:06 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-06 02:32 -0700
Re: int vs. unsigned int vs. size_t Luca Forlizzi <luca.forlizzi@gmail.com> - 2011-05-07 02:42 -0700
csiph-web