Re: more improvements for mg

#1 (**permalink**) 02-18-2008, 07:50 AM

Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:59:04AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > While this does look OK I really don't see the need for the
> > cast to size_t. In practice sizeof(foo) will not be > INT_MAX
> > unless you are creating 2GB data structures on the stack and
> > the stack is not big enough to hold such a data structure
> > anyway.
>
> I agree that cast is not necessary since even lint doesn't
> complain about it. It doesn't hurt to have the cast either,
> since that cast _will_ happen implicitly anyway. In the above
> program it doesn't matter since a positive number has a 0 for
> the most significant bit and remains the same when cast to
> unsigned.
>
> If sizeof returns size_t, and size_t is typedefed as unsigned
> int, according to the implicit expression casting rules, int
> _will_ be cast into unsigned when compared to an unsigned
> number.

Fascinating stuff. I googled a bit for implicit casting and I
found this:

http://www.peroxide.dk/download/tuto.../chapter6.html

Which goes a bit deeper into the subject.

# Han

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode