I found my out during and after two pregnancies. As my jean size expanded I started snipping off the sizing label before I wore them. Before I even put them in my closet. It's a little like disregarding the number on the scales and concentrating instead on how your clothes fit and how your body feels. Maybe it is just another form of self-deception but, then Can it?
Paula Joye is Editor of www. Why size doesn't matter. Please try again later. Peter Mortensen 29k 21 21 gold badges 97 97 silver badges bronze badges. Vijay Vijay Nate That is incorrect.
As stated in the book, using an index int i may not be enough to address a huge array. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Community Bot 1 1 1 silver badge. Draemon That comment reflects a fundamental confusion. Still, the quoted text doesn't say "sizes of in-memory objects", and "offset" is hardly a good name for a size type regardless of where it happens to be stored. Draemon Good point. This answer quotes Wikipedia, which in this case doesn't have the best explanation, in my opinion.
Section 6. Since you cannot apply sizeof to a disk file mostly because C doesn't even define how disks and files work , there is no room for confusion.
In other words, blame Wikipedia and this answer for quoting Wikipedia and not the actual C standard. Draemon - I would also agree with the "fundamental confusion" assessment. Read the C standard, which has none of those OOP objects, but yet has objects, and find out.
The answer may surprise you! Show 10 more comments. Gaurang Tandon 5, 10 10 gold badges 40 40 silver badges 76 76 bronze badges. Alok Singhal Alok Singhal JasonOster, two's complement is not a requirement in the C standard. If the value of s2 - s1 overflows an int , the behavior is undefined. Show 7 more comments. Arjun Sreedharan Arjun Sreedharan 9, 1 1 gold badge 21 21 silver badges 33 33 bronze badges. Case in point: bit Windows. Show 1 more comment.
If you are the empirical type , echo gcc -E -xc -include 'stddef. Thanks for sharing this awesome command Ciro, it helped me a lot! The matter itself is not confusing. It is the confusing mind that tries to ask many questions, and give many answers. After decades of research and studies related to the sexual psychology of women and a man's health, we have been able to conclude that girth always comes ahead of length.
Every 8 women out of 10 would prefer a man with a thicker penis over a man with longer but thinner penis. And guess what? There is a scientific logic behind this answer which has to do with a woman's desire. As we all know that the vagina of a woman is very shallow in nature, hence, a thicker penis is good for stimulating the clitoris.
The vagina is merely 4 inches or lesser in girth, and hence, a penis with thicker girth gives most sexual stimulation to the partner and therefore, a good time! And it is only natural for a woman to seek a man with thicker penis since he will be able to promise her more impact and a good orgasm.
This does means, for a fact, that a man might have 10 inches of a penis but if they don't have a thickness of at least, 4. But again, the thing is that every man cannot be perfect. Let's face it, as much as having a perfect hourglass figure for a woman is difficult as much as it is difficult for a man to have a penis with perfect thickness and perfect length!
The revelation of the long asked question above could either be good news for you or life ending news for others. But the truth is that we don't mean to scare you by this answer especially now when we are living in the age of manipulation and medical advancements! I am guessing that most of you men must be thinking of pushing hard on your lenses to make it thicker but we all know it, it is just not possible! The best and most successful way is to use organic ayurvedic medicine.
Believe it or not, but Ayurvedic medicine is the only way to ensure that you get a thicker penis. Thus, passing an unsigned int argument is always the same cost as passing an int.
Using unsigned int as the parameter type, as in:. This is generally the case on any platform in which integers and pointers have the same size, such as IP16, in which both integers and pointers occupy 16 bits, or IP32, in which both occupy 32 bits.
See the sidebar on C data model notation. I stands for int , L stands for long , LL stands for long long , and P stands for pointer to data, not pointer to function. Each letter and number is optional. For example, an I16P32 architecture supports bit int and bit pointers, without describing whether it supports long or long long.
If two consecutive types have the same size, you typically omit the first number. For example, you typically write I16L32P32 as I16LP32, which is an architecture that supports bit int , bit long , and bit pointers.
The notation typically arranges the letters so their corresponding numbers appear in ascending order. Unfortunately, this declaration for memcpy comes up short on an I16LP32 processor bits for int and bits for long and pointers , such as the first generation Motorola In this case, the processor can copy objects larger than 65, bytes, but this memcpy can't because parameter n can't handle values that large. Easy to fix, you say? Just change the type of memcpy 's third parameter:.
You can use this declaration to write a memcpy for an I16LP32 target, and it will be able to copy large objects. It will also work on IP16 and IP32 platforms, so it does provide a portable declaration for memcpy.
Unfortunately, on an IP16 platform, the machine code you get from using unsigned long here is almost certainly a little less efficient the code is both bigger and slower than what you get from using an unsigned int. In Standard C, a long whether signed or unsigned must occupy at least 32 bits.
Such platforms typically implement each bit long as a pair of bit words. In that case, moving a bit long usually requires two machine instructions, one to move each bit chunk.
In fact, almost all bit operations on these platforms require at least two instructions, if not more. Thus, declaring memcpy 's third parameter as an unsigned long in the name of portability exacts a performance toll on some platforms, something we'd like to avoid. Each Standard C implementation is supposed to choose the unsigned integer that's big enough—but no bigger than needed—to represent the size of the largest possible object on the target platform.
0コメント