what is difference between sizeof and strlen

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

In article <lnoe884a2t.fsf @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
....[color=blue]
>In response to comments made elsewhere in this thread, none of this
>has anything whatsoever to do with "religion". We are simply giving
>you the best advice we can. If this comes across as "You must do
>things this way because you'll go to Hell if you don't!", please feel
>free to ask for clarification. There's almost always a valid reason
>for the advice we give, but we don't always necessarily make that
>sufficiently clear.[/color]

I'm going to say this briefly and hope that the more intelligent readers
can fill in the blanks and not worry about the lack of all the lawyerly
bells and whistles that are ordinarily necessary.

The content of this ng is religious in the sense that it has to do with the
contents of a document - and, by extension, the goings on of the minds of
the individuals who wrote that document. Science, on the other hand, is
concerned with physical phenomena - things that are, in theory at least,
verifyable by physical experimentation . So, in terms of science, someone
can say "I've tested it - I've convinced myself - void main() works just
fine" (*). Then religion comes along and says "No, it doesn't work - you
cannot trust your senses. The document [sacred text] says it does not
work". This is the essence of religion.

I think the point is not so much that any particular thing (such as that
which is currently under discussion) is a matter of religion as that the
entire scope and charter of this ng is much more in line with a religious
framework than that of a scientific one.

And that's a strange thing to find in an ng under the comp.* hierarchy.

(*) Equivalently: "They do move".

[Gordon Burditt]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

>The content of this ng is religious in the sense that it has to do with the[color=blue]
>contents of a document - and, by extension, the goings on of the minds of
>the individuals who wrote that document. Science, on the other hand, is
>concerned with physical phenomena - things that are, in theory at least,
>verifyable by physical experimentation . So, in terms of science, someone
>can say "I've tested it - I've convinced myself - void main() works just
>fine" (*). Then religion comes along and says "No, it doesn't work - you
>cannot trust your senses. The document [sacred text] says it does not
>work". This is the essence of religion.[/color]

Problems with void main() are observable. When I use such a program
in a Makefile, it usually blows off the make with an error, because
it returns status that looks like an error to make.

Gordon L. Burditt

[Alan Balmer]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:16:46 GMT, gazelle@yin.int eraccess.com (Kenny
McCormack) wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <lnoe884a2t.fsf @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
>Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>...[color=green]
>>In response to comments made elsewhere in this thread, none of this
>>has anything whatsoever to do with "religion". We are simply giving
>>you the best advice we can. If this comes across as "You must do
>>things this way because you'll go to Hell if you don't!", please feel
>>free to ask for clarification. There's almost always a valid reason
>>for the advice we give, but we don't always necessarily make that
>>sufficientl y clear.[/color]
>
>I'm going to say this briefly and hope that the more intelligent readers
>can fill in the blanks and not worry about the lack of all the lawyerly
>bells and whistles that are ordinarily necessary.
>
>The content of this ng is religious in the sense that it has to do with the
>contents of a document - and, by extension, the goings on of the minds of
>the individuals who wrote that document. Science, on the other hand, is
>concerned with physical phenomena - things that are, in theory at least,
>verifyable by physical experimentation . So, in terms of science, someone
>can say "I've tested it - I've convinced myself - void main() works just
>fine" (*).[/color]

No scientist would accept this as proof that void main() works just
fine in another environment, or even at another time. It says only
that this particular use, in this particular program, on this
particular implementation, with the particular inputs used, worked as
many times as I tested it. Any extension of this religious belief must
be based on faith.
[color=blue]
> Then religion comes along and says "No, it doesn't work - you
>cannot trust your senses. The document [sacred text] says it does not
>work". This is the essence of religion.[/color]

But nobody here is saying that. What we are saying is that the
standard does not define what it does. That's an observable fact, as
scientific as it gets. Proof requires only that one read the standard.[color=blue]
>
>I think the point is not so much that any particular thing (such as that
>which is currently under discussion) is a matter of religion as that the
>entire scope and charter of this ng is much more in line with a religious
>framework than that of a scientific one.
>
>And that's a strange thing to find in an ng under the comp.* hierarchy.
>
>(*) Equivalently: "They do move".[/color]
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmercon sultingthis@att .net

[Anton Petrusevich]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

Keith Thompson wrote:
[color=blue]
> and since the latter is portable, there is no advantage in using the
> former.[/color]

Good point. This is just my experience that says me: "I have never seen a C
compiler which generated different symbols for void main() and for int
main()". And so in my mind it's not a big deal which defenition to use.
[color=blue]
> There's nothing religious about it. It's a matter of correctness
> about which there are strong feelings, largely because certain people
> and/or institutions have encouraged something that is incorrect for no
> good reason.[/color]

If you would call ANSI/ISO C standard as "Bible"... :)
[color=blue]
> Perhaps the word "religious" doesn't mean what you think
> it means. (And if you want to discuss that further, please take it to
> alt.usage.engli sh.)[/color]

Is my English so bad?
--
Anton Petrusevich

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:12:28 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Anton Petrusevich
<casus@att-ltd.biz> wrote:
[color=blue]
>This is just my experience that says me: "I have never seen a C
>compiler which generated different symbols for void main() and for int
>main()".[/color]

I have, and so have many others in this group. On at least one machine
I've used, void main() would cause the app to crash on exit, and/or
generate random error messages on the console.
[color=blue]
>If you would call ANSI/ISO C standard as "Bible"... :)[/color]

In this group, the ISO standard /is/ the Bible.
[color=blue]
>Is my English so bad?[/color]

its okay, I've read much worse.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Richard Tobin]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

In article <dd88lt$ctb$1@y in.interaccess. com>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@intera ccess.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Probably not relevant to *you*[/color]

I would have thought it was obvious that I meant relevant to the
behaviour and correctness of C implementations , not to any one person.

-- Richard

[Keith Thompson]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

gazelle@yin.int eraccess.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
[...][color=blue]
> The content of this ng is religious in the sense that it has to do with the
> contents of a document - and, by extension, the goings on of the minds of
> the individuals who wrote that document. Science, on the other hand, is
> concerned with physical phenomena - things that are, in theory at least,
> verifyable by physical experimentation . So, in terms of science, someone
> can say "I've tested it - I've convinced myself - void main() works just
> fine" (*). Then religion comes along and says "No, it doesn't work - you
> cannot trust your senses. The document [sacred text] says it does not
> work". This is the essence of religion.
>
> I think the point is not so much that any particular thing (such as that
> which is currently under discussion) is a matter of religion as that the
> entire scope and charter of this ng is much more in line with a religious
> framework than that of a scientific one.
>
> And that's a strange thing to find in an ng under the comp.* hierarchy.
>
> (*) Equivalently: "They do move".[/color]

No.

What we do in this newsgroup isn't "science" in the sense of
formulating hypotheses and theories and testing them by performing
experiments in the real world and observing the results.

It's more like mathematics, in which we start from a set of postulates
and rules of inference and reason from them to reach conclusions.

As far as "void main" is concerned, the standard does *not* say that
it doesn't "work". To see what it does say, read any number of
articles in this thread -- or read the standard itself.

Arguing about whether void main() "works" in comp.lang.c is not unlike
arguing about whether parallel lines can meet in Euclidean geometry.
It is a fact that parallel lines cannot meet in Euclidean geometry,
because that's one of the postulates on which it's built. It's also a
fact that "parallel" lines can meet in some non-Euclidean geometries
-- but then you're not talking about Euclidean geometry anymore.

It is, of course, possible to discuss the relationship between
Euclidean geometry and the real world (is space curved?), but strictly
speaking that's not a discussion about Euclidean geometry. Similarly,
it's possible to discuss the relationship between C and the real world
(does gcc conform to this section of the standard?), but again,
strictly speaking that's not a discussion of C, which is what this
newsgroup is about.

C is intended to be useful, of course, which is why the standard (the
set of postulates from which we work) is designed to be both
implementable (by compiler writers) and usable (by programmers).

(If I were to concede that C is a religion, we'd merely being doing
the equivalent of asking people to discuss their blasphemies *outside*
the church doors so they don't interrupt the service. But I make no
such concession.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

Anton Petrusevich <casus@att-ltd.biz> writes:[color=blue]
> Keith Thompson wrote:[color=green]
>> and since the latter is portable, there is no advantage in using the
>> former.[/color]
>
> Good point. This is just my experience that says me: "I have never seen a C
> compiler which generated different symbols for void main() and for int
> main()". And so in my mind it's not a big deal which defenition to use.[/color]

The advantage of staying within the limits defined by the standard
whenever possible is that you don't have to depend on your own
experience. If "void main()" has always worked for you in the past,
it could break tomorrow, and if you complain to your compiler vendor,
all he has to do is point to the standard. If you use "int main()"
and your program breaks, either something else is responsible for it
or you've found a compiler bug that the vendor had better fix if he
wants any repeat business.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> There's nothing religious about it. It's a matter of correctness
>> about which there are strong feelings, largely because certain people
>> and/or institutions have encouraged something that is incorrect for no
>> good reason.[/color]
>
> If you would call ANSI/ISO C standard as "Bible"... :)[/color]

Only jokingly.

The standard is a contract between implementers and programmers. It's
binding only on those who choose to accept it (or who are required to
do so by, say, their employers). There's no legal penalty for writing
a non-conforming compiler or a non-conforming program, but there are
real benefits to conformance. In this newsgroup, we usually take that
as given rather than continually re-explaining *why* it's good to have
a standard.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Perhaps the word "religious" doesn't mean what you think
>> it means. (And if you want to discuss that further, please take it to
>> alt.usage.engli sh.)[/color]
>
> Is my English so bad?[/color]

Not at all, and if I had stopped to realize that you're probably not a
native speaker of English, I would have phrased that differently. (It
was also a reference to a line from the movie "The Princess Bride".)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Chris Croughton]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:12:28 +0200, Anton Petrusevich
<casus@att-ltd.biz> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>[color=green]
>> and since the latter is portable, there is no advantage in using the
>> former.[/color]
>
> Good point. This is just my experience that says me: "I have never seen a C
> compiler which generated different symbols for void main() and for int
> main()". And so in my mind it's not a big deal which defenition to use.[/color]

It's not necessarily different symbols, it could be different code
generated. For instance, it might insist on return values being passed
back on the stack, so that for a function returning int it would do a
POP to get the return value but not for a void function -- if your void
main doesn't put that value on the stack the calling routine will try to
pop something which isn't there, possibly causing a system crash.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> There's nothing religious about it. It's a matter of correctness
>> about which there are strong feelings, largely because certain people
>> and/or institutions have encouraged something that is incorrect for no
>> good reason.[/color]
>
> If you would call ANSI/ISO C standard as "Bible"... :)[/color]

I don't. I regard it the same way as a Health and Safety handbook -- if
you do things the way it says then you will be safe. If you don't,
you are on your own and better be very certain why you are doing it in a
different way. Not just "it saves typing a line".
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Perhaps the word "religious" doesn't mean what you think
>> it means. (And if you want to discuss that further, please take it to
>> alt.usage.engli sh.)[/color]
>
> Is my English so bad?[/color]

Not at all, it's better than most of the people who post to Usenet who
claim to be native English speakers (most of the errors you make look
like typos rather than lack of knowledge of English, and I make enough
of those that I can't criticise that!). However, native speakers of
English don't always understand the words they use properly either or
they use them in ways they weren't supposed to mean (especially
politicians and journalists -- you seem too sensible to be either of
those <g>) and "religious" is one of those over-used and wrongly used
words. So is "Bible", the word does literally mean just "book" but with
capital letter at start it refers to a specific book and shouldn't be
used casually to mean "any book I respect and follow" (indeed, the
Christian Bible would be madness to follow as literally as we do the C
standard!).

Chris C

[Richard Bos]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

gazelle@yin.int eraccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm going to say this briefly and hope that the more intelligent readers
> can fill in the blanks and not worry about the lack of all the lawyerly
> bells and whistles that are ordinarily necessary.[/color]

I could put that even more briefly, but in the interest of civility I
won't.
[color=blue]
> The content of this ng is religious in the sense that it has to do with the
> contents of a document[/color]

The law is religious? Literature? Seems to me that you should go see a
real church from the inside, to know what you're talking about.

Richard

[Chris Dollin]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

Kenny McCormack wrote:
[color=blue]
> The content of this ng is religious in the sense that it has to do with
> the contents of a document - and, by extension, the goings on of the minds
> of
> the individuals who wrote that document. Science, on the other hand, is
> concerned with physical phenomena - things that are, in theory at least,
> verifyable by physical experimentation . So, in terms of science, someone
> can say "I've tested it - I've convinced myself - void main() works just
> fine" (*). Then religion comes along and says "No, it doesn't work - you
> cannot trust your senses. The document [sacred text] says it does not
> work". This is the essence of religion.[/color]

The document says that there is no obligation on the part of an implementor
to make `void main` "work" (whatever that means), so don't do it if you
want predictable results. This is not religion: it's contract law. Or
engineering.

Suppose, for example, that your local by-laws prevent you from running
a business from your home. You are free to experiment with running such
a business. You may even make a profit. However, should TPTB discover your
activities, you may experience undefined behaviour.

Suppose that you're building some circuit, and a 10-ohm resistance is
required [1]. You use a 7-ohm resistor, since your daughter used the last
10-ohm resistor yesterday as an earring, and you know from experience
that this "works". When this particular 7-ohm beast turns out to be at
the low end of the range and the smoke gets out and the circuit fails
in an embarassing (perhaps dangerous) fashion ...
[color=blue]
> I think the point is not so much that any particular thing (such as that
> which is currently under discussion) is a matter of religion as that the
> entire scope and charter of this ng is much more in line with a religious
> framework than that of a scientific one.[/color]

Computer science isn't a science; we already knew this.

Now, if you want /religious/ arguments, indentation, tab-size, global
variables, ncspellingOfVar iableNames, i++ vs ++i vs i += 1, for(;;) vs
while(1), &co, all seem to be waiting, fuel-soaked and steaming gently,
in the wings.

[1] All figures made up.

--
Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin
Stross won one! Farah won one! Langford won TWO!

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

Anton Petrusevich wrote on 08/08/05 :[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> void main()[/color]
>> ^^^^
>> Why do so many people post without
>> c) learning the first thing about C from even the most basic textbook?[/color]
>
> What if I do not care about the return value of the program?[/color]

Who is 'I' ? AFAIK, 'I' is the system. You have no control on it.
Returning an undefined value to the system invokes an undefined
behaviour. Period.

--
Emmanuel
The C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html
The C-library: http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html

"C is a sharp tool"

[Anton Petrusevich]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

Emmanuel Delahaye wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> What if I do not care about the return value of the program?[/color]
> Who is 'I' ? AFAIK, 'I' is the system. You have no control on it.
> Returning an undefined value to the system invokes an undefined
> behaviour. Period.[/color]

It (the behaviour) can be perfectly defined for some particular system. The
system just returns (undefined) & 255 to the process which executed the
program. And then this process reads that (undefined) octet and happily
throws it away. I am not interested in this discussion anymore.
--
Anton Petrusevich

[Chris Dollin]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

Anton Petrusevich wrote:
[color=blue]
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> void main()[/color]
>> ^^^^
>> Why do so many people post without
>> c) learning the first thing about C from even the most basic textbook?[/color]
>
> What if I do not care about the return value of the program? Or better,
> what if I _do_ care but use exit(0)?[/color]

The Standard doesn't say what a `void main` might mean, so using it
isn't portable. It doesn't matter whether or not you call `exit`,
as far as I can tell.

--
Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin
Stross won one! Farah won one! Langford won TWO!

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

Re: what is difference between sizeof and strlen

Anton Petrusevich wrote on 08/08/05 :[color=blue][color=green]
>> "Undefined behaviour" is a technical term in the C standard. It's not
>> really relevant whether *you* would call it that.[/color]
>
> I don't get it. I thought, and I still continue to think, that "undefined
> behaviour" means just that: when the behaviour is undefined. If the
> behaviour is dependent on some defined thing (platform) then it's
> "defined". You (or I) just need to know the platform. Of course, there's no
> such (defined) thing as "platform" in C standard, so they say "undefined
> behaviour". "int main()" is a tough religion, isn't it?[/color]

No matter what you think. Just stick to the facts. The C standard
defines a number of behaviours. Some others are clearly under the
responsability of the implementation (implementation-dependent). The
rest is simply 'undefined'. It's a fact. Period. There is nothing
really to argue about it.

What is undefined can do anything. The result is not predictable and
not reproducable. It's a bug. Period.

--
Emmanuel
The C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html
The C-library: http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html

I once asked an expert COBOL programmer, how to
declare local variables in COBOL, the reply was:
"what is a local variable?"