> it shouldn't pose a problem for me right?
It's the difference between being lucky and being right.
Using sizeof(int*) instead of sizeof(int) is down to being lucky, and that you probably get the same answer (say 4) on your machine.
If you had sizeof(big_struct*) where you actually meant sizeof(big_struct), you would rather rapidly become unlucky.
The best (and easiest) approach is to not refer to the type at all, but refer to what the variable points to. These do the same thing, use the variable to determine the size.
Code:int *p = malloc ( 10 * sizeof(p[0]) ); double *q = malloc ( 20 * sizeof *q );
