From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4a5af3e435f7af021644e8751db1e8e6@quintile.net>
From: "Steve Simon" <steve@quintile.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:54:35 +0000
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <ed9454dde8d6ea418f09082ca95ce43e@hamnavoe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] go forth and ulong no more!
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0156628-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> "The expression sizeof(object) yields an integer equal to the
> size of the specified object."
>
> Not "unsigned integer".  Old habits die hard.

I feel your pain.

We use lint a lot here and it irritates me greatly when it
grumbles about loss of precision in assignment
from sizeof() or nelem() to an int, e.g.

	int i;
	struct Result Results[4096];

	for(i = 0; i < nelem(Results); i++)
		memset(&Results[i], 0, sizeof(Result));

I wish I had been in the standards meeting with a big stick when somone
suggested sizeof() returned an unsigned.

No doubt somone will pipe up and explain why its a very good idea, but it
still annoys me.

-Steve