On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:56:27AM +0100, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > > On 16 November 2014 at 23:33 Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Fabian, > > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Fabian Frederick <fabf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > sizeof(u8) is always 1. > > > > I thought that sizeof(*variable) was preferred over sizeof(type), so > > shouldn't these be switched to that format instead? > > > > (I know that this is all no-op, but it should reduce the potential for > > highly unlikely bugs in the future. Also, the extra processing is > > compile-time not run-time.) > > > > Thanks, > > Hi Julian, > > Of course but char/u8/s8... allocations never use it and result would be the > same: > factor 1 multiplication. > > Those rare occurrences (+- 30 in the whole kernel) where we have > sizeof(u8/s8) is ambiguous. > > Having a patch removing it gives a pointer... > If the developer meant something else, he will be able to fix it. > > Regards, > Fabian sizeof(*variable) still seems safer. Are the compilers unable to optimize-away a "multiply by one"? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
