On 1 April 2014 07:50, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stupidly I can't include your patch in my response... oh well. > > Quick questions: > > a) I don't think we support any architecture where sizeof(char) isn't > just 1 - and we don't do those calculations anywhere else. So I think > you might as well drop them. I forgot to ask about that in the first > patch that I already pushed out >
i always tell people to include this for clarity and consistency. it's still viable in the sense of "what size times how much" and with other typed allocations in a function e.g. a function having multiple allocations using sizeof(int), sizeof(struct something) etc. hm, also in that sense do we omit sizeof(int) and assume 4? in terms of the patch, a local constant could be used instead of the multiple sizeof(). lubomir -- _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
