Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:8665 comp.arch:4132
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!necntc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Bit Addressable Architectures
Message-ID: <3216@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: 29 Mar 88 18:50:09 GMT
References: <11702@brl-adm.ARPA> <243@eagle_snax.UUCP> <2245@geac.UUCP> <1988Mar6.002518.945@utzoo.uucp> <2760@mmintl.UUCP> <17458@watmath.waterloo.edu> <504@sol.warwick.ac.uk>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 15
Summary: Use sizeof(char) where applicable

In article <504@sol.warwick.ac.uk> cudcv@cu.warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) writes:
>... or does everybody but me write "malloc((strlen(s)+1)*sizeof(char))" ?

I do.  It automatically makes the argument the right type$ for malloc()
(assuming malloc's argument and sizeof's result are both unsigned, or size_t
in ANSI C); and it makes it easier to convert when you later decide that you
want to use some type other than char.  And, of course, it makes the code no
longer dependent on the questionable% sizeof(char)==1.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
Followups to comp.lang.c only.
________
$ Yes, strlen() is already a size_t in ANSI C, but this situation can also
occur with int-valued expressions.
% I don't question that it's true, just whether it's a good idea.