Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: sizeof in 36-bits machines
Message-ID: <11341@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 19 Oct 89 10:39:47 GMT
References: <272@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> <11284@smoke.BRL.MIL> <398@cpsolv.UUCP> <11300@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14904@haddock.ima.isc.com> <10969@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 17

In article <10969@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> diamond@ws.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes:
->>>Alternatively, you could just make sizeof(int)=sizeof(char)=1
-Doug Gwyn replied to the posting but did not comment on this sentence.

Yes, I did.

-In article <14904@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
->It remains to be seen whether this is legal, and if so, what happens when the
->input stream contains a bit pattern that compares equal to the value of EOF.
-There is a reason why Mr. Gwyn did not comment on that particular
-sentence.  If sizeof(int)==sizeof(char), indeed it is possible that the
-input stream might contain a bit pattern that compares equal to the
-value of EOF.  The programmer must test feof().  I believe Mr. Gwyn
-once remarked that he found this distasteful but got used to it.

I also responded to Karl's followup that you cited.  Your last sentence
does not reflect what I said about the situation.