Quote:
Originally Posted by fysiks
Huh, you're not referencing the code that I posted. The size of the passed array is passed into the function as the second argument.
It does this at compile time as the decompiled code shows.
I proved my statement. A bunch of your statements don't make any sense so it's clear you're talking about something that I've never claimed to be true.
What are you talking about? I didn't do anything related to "lowering the size of the arrays", whatever that means.
Removing sizeof doesn't "save a lot of data", why in the world would you think that? What theory are you trying to prove?
What?? The decompiler doesn't show you the data in the array. It shows the pointer to the array.
The size of the array is determined at compile time (as proven by the decompiled output) and is used as the function parameter that had the sizeof defined as the default value.
I'm not proving that you're right. I've proven that my statement about the size of the array being determine at compile time is correct. I'm not sure what you think you're arguing about.
I know plenty of "basic things", maybe you need to learn how to comprehend english.
|
almenos se hablar ingles, veamos si almenos puedes decir una palabra en espaņol jaja
muchas mentiras en este post, y no seguire perdiendo mi tiempo desmitiendo con argumentos, como lo he venido haciendo desde hace 5 paginas, tengo cosas mejores que hacer
y si, bajarle el tamaņo del array