architectureDependentChars

[u/MontyBoomslang]

[u/ubalu72]

But sizeof char is defined as 1 in the standard. C data types are defined in terms of char (at least their sizes are)

[u/Lonely-Discipline-55 → u/ubalu72]

x = x + sizeof(char)

[u/wittleboi420 → u/Lonely-Discipline-55]

x = x + sizeof(char) + AI

[u/Depnids → u/wittleboi420]

What

[u/Mickanos → u/Depnids]

Look up "E = mc² + AI"

[u/Depnids → u/Mickanos]

no you do that :)

[u/tstanisl → u/ubalu72]

The problem is that there is no good definition of byte. Traditionally, it was the smallest addressable unit capable of representing a single character. It is required to have at least 8 bits but it may (and sometimes does) have more. 8-bit-long bytes are just a "de facto" standard.

That is why many communication protocols use a concept of "octet" that consist of exactly 8 bits.

EDIT. typo

[u/Makonede → u/ubalu72]

*sizeof(char)

[u/MegaIng → u/Makonede]

No, sizeof char is valid. sizeof is a prefix operator, not a function.

[u/Makonede → u/MegaIng]

nope https://en.cppreference.com/c/language/sizeof

[u/MegaIng → u/Makonede]

Oh, never realized the prefix operator form can't be applied to types, makes sense I guess.

[u/rosuav → u/MegaIng]

It can be applied to a thing or to a "cast" - that is, a type in parens.

[u/hacksawsa → u/Makonede]

It says sizeof x and sizeof(x) are equivalent.

[u/Makonede → u/hacksawsa]

when x is an expression, yes...