4 ms·
The first one looks like a declaration in the global scope with a sane default, the latter is determining the actual size. Haven't done C in a long long time,
by forkerenok 4y ago
The first one looks like a declaration in the global scope with a sane default, the latter is determining the actual size.
Haven't done C in a long long time, so I may be talking out of my ass.
- pkphilip 4y agoYour take seems accurate. That is my reading as well
- sph 4y agoI don't believe it one bit that you haven't done C in 2^64 seconds. EDIT: technically 2^63-1 seconds.
- jay-barronville 4y agoLol! I actually chuckled at this. I completely missed that.
- Someone 4y agoI think it’s more likely this is a minor/latent bug. Initializing the value and later assigning it a new value runs the risk of having some code that uses the value of one expression and other code that uses the value (presumedly/hopefully identical to the former) of another expression. That’s not a risk you want to take. The name also doesn’t give me an indication they considered making the code agnostic as to the size of that variable.