On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 04:51:14PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> Well, OK, you may either do
>
> int foo(int n, int p[])
>
> or
>
> int foo(int n, int p[])
int bar(int n, int p[n]) I presume...
I am perfectly OK with sizeof returning sizeof(int*) for your
foo() function, but it just feels so wrong to do it when the size
is so easily accessible...
>
> but sizeof doesn't distinguish these two cases. In any case, how would
> you do it? Would an assignment to n change the result of sizeof, or not?
> If not, you'd have to create a "shadow" variable.
Sure not, it is not changed when you do (on a 32-bit platform):
int foo()
{ int s=10,a[s];
s=11;
assert(sizeof s==40);
}
Try it... Why should the behaviour be so much different in the
parameter passing case?
>
> But that would break compliant code. Why would you want to do that?
OK, that's the only argument I buy.
Pjotr
