17 Oct
2012
17 Oct
'12
6:22 a.m.
On 17 Oct 2012, at 10:41, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:26:35AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
I guess if there's any doubt,
"%lu", (long)sizeof(...)
should be pretty safe.
Yuck. Cast of unsigned to signed :oP
Sorry, I meant "%lu", (unsigned long)sizeof(...)
Hmm, but size_t could be 64bits, long is only guaranteed to be 32bits? If you use unsigned long long and %llu you're into C99 features. -Arran