Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!orc!bbn.com!drilex!dricejb
From: dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: FAQ - malloc array - clarify
Keywords: malloc, Sun, lint
Message-ID: <15495@drilex.UUCP>
Date: 14 Sep 90 13:43:00 GMT
References: <8056@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1990Sep08.022034.8444@virtech.uucp> <1803@tuvie> <1990Sep11.002544.9151@virtech.uucp> <1806@tuvie>
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA
Lines: 18

A poster recently wondered why a statement like

double *ptr = (double *) malloc(ncols * sizeof(double));

gave lint complaints about the argument to malloc().

People here have been blathering on about broken compilers, erroneous lint
libraries, etc, thinking that 'sizeof()' is returning an int on that machine.

Wouldn't a more reasonable explanation be that 'ncols' is an int, and that
particular compiler treats 'int * unsigned' as 'int' (or 'long int')?  
I don't have all of the rules about value-preserving vs 
unsignedness-preserving burned into my head, but such an explanation 
sure makes sense to me...
-- 
Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}