why sizeof can't be overloaded?

[Lokicer]

hi
I am a newbie in c++, help me!
thanks in much

lokicer

[Michael P. O'Connor]

I believe the reason is because sizeof is a macro instead of a function.
thus this is done in the preprocessor and not in the compiler.

[Sharad Kala]

"Michael P. O'Connor" <mp**@mikeoconnor.net> wrote in message

I believe the reason is because sizeof is a macro instead of a function.
sizeof being a macro..you must be kidding. It's an operator.
thus this is done in the preprocessor and not in the compiler.

To OP: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_f...l#overload-dot

Sharad

[Michael P. O'Connor]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:14:46 +0530, Sharad Kala wrote:

sizeof being a macro..you must be kidding. It's an operator.

Thanks was always under the wrong impression there. And thanks for the
link, I will make sure to read it, even though you were giving the link to
the other person.

[count zero]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:29:24 +0800, "Lokicer" <lo*****@163.com> wrote:

hi
I am a newbie in c++, help me!
thanks in much

Why on earth would you want to "overload" the sizeof operator?

Let me guess... Your father is also your uncle...

[Rolf Magnus]

Please always put your question into the posting's body, not just the
subject line.

Lokicer wrote:

why sizeof can't be overloaded?

I can see two reasons:
1st: sizeof is evaluated at compile-time, so you can use it in places where
a compile-time constant is required. If you overload it, that's not longer
possible.
2nd: What the heck would you need it for?

[Andrew Koenig]

"Lokicer" <lo*****@163.com> wrote in message
news:d0***********@mail.cn99.com...

I am a newbie in c++, help me!
thanks in much

Suppose sizeof could be overloaded. Can you give an example of a piece of
code that could usefully take advantage of that ability?

[Siemel Naran]

"Rolf Magnus" <ra******@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d0*************@news.t-

why sizeof can't be overloaded?

2nd: What the heck would you need it for?

One reason: to determine the memory held by the entire object, including
dynamic memory. For this one could add a virtual size function, though be
aware that the actual amount of dynamic memory used depends very much on
compiler and platform implementation details.

class Derived : pulic Base {
std::wstring s;
std::vector<double> v;
char ca[100];
public:
virtual size_t dynamic_size() const;
};

size_t Derived::dynamic_size() const {
size_t base = Base::dynamic_size() - sizeof(Base);
return
base
+ sizeof(Derived)
+ s.capacity()*sizeof(wchar_t)
+ v.capacity()*sizeof(double)
;
}

But I don't know how to get the dynamic memory of a std::deque, std::list,
or any of the other containers.

[Victor Bazarov]

"Siemel Naran" <Si*********@REMOVE.att.net> wrote...

"Rolf Magnus" <ra******@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d0*************@news.t-

> why sizeof can't be overloaded?

2nd: What the heck would you need it for?

One reason: to determine the memory held by the entire object, including
dynamic memory. [...]

But sizeof is a compile-time operator. How the hell would it report the
dynamic memory? And another sentiment: what would be the use of that
reported size? You can't memcpy it anywhere, you can't pass that size
to the stream::write, because the memory is not contuguous.

[Siemel Naran]

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> wrote in message
news:UNudneT8QfdVzrffRVn-

"Siemel Naran" <Si*********@REMOVE.att.net> wrote...

One reason: to determine the memory held by the entire object, including
dynamic memory. [...]

But sizeof is a compile-time operator. How the hell would it report the
dynamic memory? And another sentiment: what would be the use of that
reported size? You can't memcpy it anywhere, you can't pass that size
to the stream::write, because the memory is not contuguous.

Your points are valid. But to many people, especially those not too
familiar with the language, one of the uses of sizeof appears to be to
determine the actual size of an object, which could be useful for analyzing
memory usage of our program.

[Julián Albo]

Siemel Naran wrote:

Your points are valid. But to many people, especially those not too
familiar with the language, one of the uses of sizeof appears to be to
determine the actual size of an object, which could be useful for
analyzing memory usage of our program.

The solution is that those people learn the language, not to change the
language.

--
Salu2

[Jonathan Turkanis]

Siemel Naran wrote:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> wrote in message
news:UNudneT8QfdVzrffRVn-

"Siemel Naran" <Si*********@REMOVE.att.net> wrote...

One reason: to determine the memory held by the entire object,
including dynamic memory. [...]

But sizeof is a compile-time operator. How the hell would it report
the dynamic memory? And another sentiment: what would be the use of
that reported size? You can't memcpy it anywhere, you can't pass
that size to the stream::write, because the memory is not contuguous.

Your points are valid. But to many people, especially those not too
familiar with the language, one of the uses of sizeof appears to be to
determine the actual size of an object, which could be useful for
analyzing memory usage of our program.

I doubt this notion of size is well-defined. Suppose you have a type T whose
instances store pointers to dynamically allocated objects of type D. Now, the
"real" size S of the instances should be something like the size discovered with
sizeof plus the size of the dynamically allocated objects. Now suppose you have
a vector of 100 instances of T. You'd think the size of the vector would be
about S * 100. But some instances of D may be shared among instances of T, and
there's no general way for vector to discover this.

Jonathan

[Old Wolf]

Siemel Naran wrote:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> wrote:

"Siemel Naran" <Si*********@REMOVE.att.net> wrote...

One reason: to determine the memory held by the entire object,
including dynamic memory. [...]

But sizeof is a compile-time operator. How the hell would it
report the dynamic memory?

In C99, sizeof can be a run-time operator. And there has been
talk of C++ adopting much of C99.
Your points are valid. But to many people, especially those not too
familiar with the language, one of the uses of sizeof appears to be to determine the actual size of an object, which could be useful for analyzing memory usage of our program.

string::string s[5];
s[0] = "hello";
foo(s, sizeof s / sizeof *s); // whoops

[Jonathan Turkanis]

Old Wolf wrote:

Siemel Naran wrote:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> wrote:

"Siemel Naran" <Si*********@REMOVE.att.net> wrote...

One reason: to determine the memory held by the entire object,
including dynamic memory. [...]

But sizeof is a compile-time operator. How the hell would it
report the dynamic memory?

In C99, sizeof can be a run-time operator. And there has been
talk of C++ adopting much of C99.

I don't know of any plans to introduce variable length arrays into C++, do you?
Furthermore, making sizeof a runtime operation would interfere with common
type-traits and metaprogramming techniques.

Jonathan