On Sunday 05 August 2007 02:23:11 pm Vitaliy Margolen wrote: > Chris Robinson wrote: > > + > > + /* End */ > > + {NULL, 0} > > }; > > [..] > > > - for (i = 0; i < (sizeof(EXTENSION_MAP) / > > sizeof(*EXTENSION_MAP)); ++i) { + for (i = 0; > > EXTENSION_MAP[i].extension_string; ++i) { > > What was the reason for this change? It's a static const array why do you > want to treat it as a dynamically sized one?
Because at the time, I was attempting to track down memory corruption, and I didn't trust that the compiler wasn't adding an extra element to the list (due to the last specified element ending with a comma to signify another, and the array size not being explicit). Ending the array with a NULL would gaurantee you can't overrun it in either case.