«

Hi,

Without using sizeof, is there a way to get to know the size of any data
type on that OS ... ???

one way I could think of is to take diff of the addresses of two variables
defined consecutively.
Any other way .....????

thanks,
nitin

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:08:24 +0530, Nitin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Without using sizeof, is there a way to get to know the size of any data
> type on that OS ... ???
>
> one way I could think of is to take diff of the addresses of two variables
> defined consecutively.
> Any other way .....????

Don't think they are guaranteed to be consecutive in memory, and the
compiler may use padding between them anyway.

regards
NPV

"Nitin" <> wrote in
<bj1oek$>:
>Hi,
>
>Without using sizeof, is there a way to get to know the size of any data
>type on that OS ... ???
I'm curious: may I kindly ask why you would like to stay away from using
'sizeof'?

--
Air is water with holes in it.

"Nitin" <> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Without using sizeof, is there a way to get to know the size of any data
> type on that OS ... ???
>
> one way I could think of is to take diff of the addresses of two variables
> defined consecutively.

If by "consecutive" you mean "guaranteed to be consecutive", as in an array,
then yes. If `T' is a type, and `t' is a variable of type `T', then the
expression `(size_t)((char *)(&t + 1) - (char *)&t)' yields the same value
as `sizeof (T)'.

Martin

Nils Petter Vaskinn wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:08:24 +0530, Nitin wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Without using sizeof, is there a way to get to know the size of any data
> > type on that OS ... ???
> >
> > one way I could think of is to take diff of the addresses of two variables
> > defined consecutively.
> > Any other way .....????
>
> Don't think they are guaranteed to be consecutive in memory, and the
> compiler may use padding between them anyway.

If they are defined as consecutive elements in an array,
then they will be in consecutive memory without padding.

--
pete

Martin Dickopp wrote:
> "Nitin" <> writes:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Without using sizeof, is there a way to get to know the size of any data
>>type on that OS ... ???
>>
>>one way I could think of is to take diff of the addresses of two variables
>>defined consecutively.
>
>
> If by "consecutive" you mean "guaranteed to be consecutive", as in an array,
> then yes. If `T' is a type, and `t' is a variable of type `T', then the
> expression `(size_t)((char *)(&t + 1) - (char *)&t)' yields the same value
> as `sizeof (T)'.
>
But this will fail to work for datatypes. It only works
for instances/objects/variables of datatypes.
Take a try to write one that works for datatypes......

Bye,
../Chaitanya Atreya

> Martin

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:08:24 +0530, "Nitin" <>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

> Hi,
>
> Without using sizeof, is there a way to get to know the size of any data
> type on that OS ... ???
>
> one way I could think of is to take diff of the addresses of two variables
> defined consecutively.
> Any other way .....????
>
> thanks,
> nitin

Yes, forget the nonsense and use sizeof, that's what its there for.
Are you the same person who asked the same question a few months ago?

Why not use sizeof?

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq

Its not a question of staying away. Just trying to find out alternate ways
of doing it.


"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Nitin" <> wrote in
> <bj1oek$>:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Without using sizeof, is there a way to get to know the size of any data
> >type on that OS ... ???
> I'm curious: may I kindly ask why you would like to stay away from using
> 'sizeof'?
>
> --
> Air is water with holes in it.

I got another one:
------
int a;
printf("%x,%x",&a+1,&a);
------
now take diff of the two output values. This solution doesn't care whether
compiler does padding
between the addresses of two conseutively defined variables.

BTW, does compiler do padding .... ??????

thanks,
..nitin

> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:08:24 +0530, Nitin wrote:
> >
> > Don't think they are guaranteed to be consecutive in memory, and the
> > compiler may use padding between them anyway.
>
> If they are defined as consecutive elements in an array,
> then they will be in consecutive memory without padding.
>
> --
> pete

"Nitin" <> writes:

> int a;
> printf("%x,%x",&a+1,&a);

This invokes undefined behavior. The 'x' format specifier expects an
`unsigned int', but you provide a pointer.

Martin