Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/sys tls.2
: The poin is, guys, that sizeof(some_ridiculously_large_structure_or_array_
: which_is_as_large_as_the_processes_entire_address_space) is just plain
: ridiculous, and sizeof() should not have been made to return size_t
: for something so silly. They could have added a usizeof() for the one
: in a million chance that someone actually needed something like that,
: but no... the idiots on the standard committee seem to believe that
: sizeof() is only EVER used in calls to read() or write(), verses, say,
: in generic exprssions that might, say, calculate an array index.
:
: for (i = 0; i < sizeof(ary)/sizeof(ary[0]); ++i) ... now, should i
: be unsigned here, or an int? it should be an int, plain and simple,
: for 99.99999% of the programs ever written.
:
: For the same reason, a TLS segment that is the size of the entire
: address space (or even 1/2 the entire address space), is also ridiculous.
:
: -Matt
Sorry, I'm going down a rabbit hole here. What I REALLY meant to say
was that it should be signed... i.e. an int or a long, rather then
unsigned. In the case of sizeof() I have to agree with chris... it
should be an 'int' if it is small enough to fit, and a 'long' otherwise,
and overflow values should not be allowed (generate a compile time error)
or there should be separate keyword, like usizeof(), which returns the
value as unsigned.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 17 之 20 篇)：