Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: derived types Message-ID: <6938@watdaisy.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 13:10:22 EST Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6938 Posted: Fri Feb 8 13:10:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 05:45:29 EST References: <7989@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 26 > /* > uncle! i give! i accept the fact that sizeof(int) may not be sizeof(int *). > i DO believe that sizeof(foo *) should be sizeof(bar *). otherwise it's > just too confusing. more irrational viewpoints later. > */ I agree that it is confusing when sizeof(foo *) != sizeof(bar *). Fortunately, machines like this are invented a little bit less frequently than those that have sizeof(int) != sizeof(int *). However, the question remains: When a machine has such confusing (and obnoxious and) characteristics, we have a choice of: (1) Reflecting it in C, (2) Wasting memory so that smaller pointers can be allocated the same amount of memory as larger pointers, or (3) Not allowing C compilers to exist for that machine. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."