From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 109d8a,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,dea70f96af442ea2
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gid9ef9b79ae9,gid4516fb5702,gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news-transit.tcx.org.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!not-for-mail
From: nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:15:19 +0100 (BST)
Organization: Department of Deniable Assertions
Sender: nmm@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk
Message-ID: <ipdl1n$dnf$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <ipd5i2011p@news6.newsguy.com> <91ukucFq9cU2@mid.individual.net>
 <ipd9oo$kug$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nmm1@cam.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: chiark.greenend.org.uk
X-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1304060029 13343 212.13.197.229 (29 Apr 2011
 06:53:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@chiark.greenend.org.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:53:49 +0000 (UTC)
Originator: @gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.10.32])
Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:234232 comp.lang.c:126625
 comp.lang.fortran:41284 comp.lang.pl1:2422 comp.lang.ada:20056
Date: 2011-04-29T07:15:19+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <ipd9oo$kug$1@dont-email.me>,
Eric Sosman  <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>On 4/28/2011 10:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>>> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
>>> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
>>> in some cases at run time.
>>
>> Being pedantic, sizeof is a compile time operator when used with
>> integral types.
>
>     It's an operator, always.  It's evaluable at compile time for
>any operand, integral or not, except a variable-length array (whose
>element count is not determined until run time).

It's not just evaluable at compile time, it is evaluated using
only the type and not the value of the expression.  C99 6.5.3.4
paragraph 2.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.