On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:07:22 +0100 (BST) Jim Jackson <j...@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, Steve Litt wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:01:53 +0100 > > s@po <tux...@sapo.pt> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:34:54 +0100 (BST) > > > Jim Jackson <j...@franjam.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > sizeof() is calculated by the compiler, not at run time. The > > > > code generated would be the same. > > > > > > Hello Jim, > > > Indeed it his, my point was only a observation, that if size is > > > fixed, no need to calculate it at compile time, the preprocessor > > > can solve that with a macro.. The code generated will be indeed > > > the same. Only was a observation ;) > > > > I vote for leaving it as a function. > > > > What would be gained by making it a macro? A microsecond? What are > > the bottlenecks of the software? Are keyboard or mouse input > > involved? > > > > If these sizeof() calls are deep in a tight nested loop, by all > > means make them into a macro. Otherwise, why give up the simplicity > > of a function for the sometimes edge case weirdness of a macro? > > I do wish people would read. Those sizeof()'s are not executable > functions, they are calculated by the compiler at compile time into > their fixed numbers and inserted into the code as fixed numbers, just > as a macro would! There is no difference at runtime. The code > generated would be identical. > > There is no execution penalty to using sizeof()! Then sizeof() is perfect for the job. SteveT Steve Litt June 2019 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
