On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 20:07 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > Steven Dake wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:11 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Ryan O'Hara wrote: > >> > This patch is correct, but what I intended was to use sizeof (struct > >> > resource_instance). Can we do that instead? > >> > >> Please try to move to "sizeof (VARIABLE)". > > > > I really don't prefer this because people __often__ make the error of > > not dereferencing a pointer type. This happens more often then a > > structure completely changes on the variable the sizeof should operate > > on. These sorts of errors are extremely difficult to notice as well. > > Whichever way you do it, there's risk of getting it wrong. > It's mainly a question of getting used to an idiom and > knowing what to watch out for: > > For example, I know right away that these are correct, > assuming that they compile (i.e., no context required): > > p = malloc (sizeof *p); > ... > new_q = realloc (q, sizeof *p); > > > On the other hand, if I use explicit type names, > > p = malloc (sizeof (struct foo)); > ... > new_q = realloc (q, sizeof (struct foo *)); > > Then I have to find each declarat.ion and ensure that the type matches. > > > If I audit the code for this and find two or more errors, > would you consider a change of policy?
I don't have a strong preference as long as the code base is consistently using one style or the other. We can closely watch those commits on sizeofs to make sure they operate on the full type instead of the pointer type. _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
