On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:52:49AM -0800, Chris Pressey wrote:
> I wouldn't say it should return an int, though: IMO sizeof(x) ought to
> be treated just like any other numeric constant in C - that is,
> interpreted as signed or unsigned as the situation dictates. Why they
> introduced this gratuitous unorthogonality, I have no idea. Well, maybe
> that's not strictly true... I _can_ guess. Probably "sizeof always
> yields a positive number so we should force its type to be unsigned."
> But that makes exactly as much sense as "4 always yields a positive
> number so we should force its type to be unsigned," which is stupid.
Because sizeof(char[2 << 31]) and sizeof(char[2 << 30]) should have the
same type.
Joerg