Re: sizeof(x)
- From: Eric Sosman <esosman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:21:19 -0400
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:Ioannis Vranos wrote:Ioannis Vranos wrote:Did you read what Harald said: "(x) is a perfectly valid expression"?I first saw that only sizeof x is valid at the pdf hosted atMore specifically the above writes:
http://cprog.tomsweb.net.
"sizeof Returns size of operand in bytes; two forms:
1) sizeof(type)
2) sizeof expression"
... right. However sizeofx doesn't compile and if (x) was considered an
expression it should be sizeof (x), and sizeof(x) shouldn't compile.
Try sizeof(((((((((((((((((((((x)))))))))))))))))))))
and perhaps the answer will come to you.
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: sizeof(x)
- From: Ioannis Vranos
- Re: sizeof(x)
- References:
- sizeof(x)
- From: Ioannis Vranos
- Re: sizeof(x)
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: sizeof(x)
- From: Ioannis Vranos
- Re: sizeof(x)
- From: Ioannis Vranos
- Re: sizeof(x)
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: sizeof(x)
- From: Ioannis Vranos
- sizeof(x)
- Prev by Date: Re: Strange bit shifting result with gcc - am I missing something obvious?
- Next by Date: Re: sizeof(x)
- Previous by thread: Re: sizeof(x)
- Next by thread: Re: sizeof(x)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|