[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Chinese AVS video decoder

The Wanderer inverseparadox
Mon Jul 3 22:51:51 CEST 2006

Jan Knutar wrote:

> On Sunday 02 July 2006 07:47, Bobby Bingham wrote:
>>> And it's very reasonable to have such a unit be a standard type,
>>> but I still don't think it makes much sense to call it "char"
>>> when it apparently has nothing to do with character data as such.
>> But back in the day, when it was given the name "char", they seem
>> to have only been thinking about Western European languages.  And
>> from that view, you can fit a single character in a byte.  Though
>> as you've noticed, that idea was rather short-sighted and shows its
>> age now.
> There's nothing preventing char from being 16 bits though. Or 12.

Hmm. But isn't sizeof(foo) supposed to return the size of foo in bytes,
by definition? (I've been Googling for a copy of the C standard - since
even an outdated version would presumably address this question - but
haven't turned up anything which seems comprehensive, although I did
find one piece which goes into exhaustive detail on many points but
doesn't explain sizeof.) If char is 16-bit, then either the statement
which prompted my original question was wrong (sizeof(char) would have
to return 2, not 1), or sizeof(foo) does not necessarily return the
number of bytes necessary to store foo - which I thought was the entire
point of sizeof in the first place.

       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list