Why do you need the casting operator to receive the correct size
of my_array? And what is it outputting if you don't use it?
Code:#include <stdio.h> char * my_array[] = {"string1", "string2", "string3", ""}; int main() { printf("size of my_array = %u\n", sizeof( (char*)my_array)); return 0; }
Why don't you run it and find out? The cast is wrong, by the way. You shouldn't be using a cast there. First off, 'sizeof' isn't really meant for arrays. It will work in the right situation, but it's not really useful for that.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
But now I realize that addresses can be different sizes on machines, therefore different byte sizes - scratch the casting operator idea.
What situation will sizeof not work?
It won't work in cases where the array is not declared in direct scope of the usage of the sizeof operator.Code:void foo( char array[] ) { printf("size of array is: %d\n", sizeof( array ) ); } void bar( void ) { char array[ 100 ]; foo( array ); }
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
When used on an array the sizeof operator will return its size in bytes. If you want the number of elements, you need to divide the size of the array by the size of one of its elements:
Some programmers use a macro to make the code more readable:Code:printf("size of my_array = %u\n", sizeof(my_array) / sizeof(my_array[0]));
The sizeof operator will return the size of an array that is declared in the current scope. When used on a pointer, it will return the size of a pointer, which is 4 bytes on most 32bit platforms.Code:#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0])) printf("size of my_array = %u\n", ARRAY_SIZE(my_array));
Thanks for the response anonytmouse, and not the typical condescending criticism. Some people tend to forget that other people aren't programmers and have lives outside of a computer.
Whine whine whine. Where's the "condesending criticism" in any of my posts here? And yes, you were talking about me, because I'm the only one that replied.
Let's pull your head out of your ass and see why I replied the way I did:
Originally Posted by Dave Jay
Wow, that sure was "condesending". You post a program which will compile and run, and ask us what the output is. Is it really that hard to just compile and run it? If so, which you then follow up and say you did already do, then why did you ask what the output was?
Furthermore, my second reply was another exact answer to your question. All you whiners should stop feeling sorry about yourselves for long enoug to actually read what I write once in a while instead of crying about possibly getting your feelings hurt.
Gee, I'm really sorry if I don't pander and sugar coat things for you little whiners.
No wait, that's not true at all.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
I didn't know what the output meant.Wow, that sure was "condesending". You post a program which will compile and run, and ask us what the output is. Is it really that hard to just compile and run it? If so, which you then follow up and say you did already do, then why did you ask what the output was?
As usual, my intuition about you was right. Do me a favor and ignore my posts.
Closed. Seriously.
