Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9093 comp.arch:4306
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mcgill-vision!mouse
From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Bit Addressable Architectures
Message-ID: <1040@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: 10 Apr 88 00:26:34 GMT
References: <11702@brl-adm.ARPA> <243@eagle_snax.UUCP> <2245@geac.UUCP> <7578@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Lines: 22

In article <7578@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <504@sol.warwick.ac.uk> cudcv@cu.warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) writes:
>> I wonder how much code out there assumes that ...
>> sizeof("constant string"), or sizeof(initialised_char_array)
>> is the same as strlen(xx)+1 ?
> There's a lot of code like that, no question.  It would continue to
> work if sizeof(char) were allowed to be other than 1,

How could it?

char foo[] = "This is foo";

strlen(foo) is 11.  sizeof(foo) is 12*sizeof(char).  Or are you
redefining strlen() as well?

Personally, I tend towards the sizeof returning size in bits rather
than bytes.  And making bits full objects.  And lots of other
things...but this belongs in comp.lang.d.

					der Mouse

			uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp
			arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu