• mmddmm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    And compiler. And hardware architecture. And optimization flags.

    As usual, it’s some developer that knows little enough to think the walls they see around enclose the entire world.

    • Lucien [he/him]@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Fucking lol at the downvoters haha that second sentence must have rubbed them the wrong way for being too accurate.

    • timhh@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I don’t think so. Apart from dynamically typed languages which need to store the type with the value, it’s always 1 byte, and that doesn’t depend on architecture (excluding ancient or exotic architectures) or optimisation flags.

      Which language/architecture/flags would not store a bool in 1 byte?

      • brian@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        things that store it as word size for alignment purposes (most common afaik), things that pack multiple books into one byte (normally only things like bool sequences/structs), etc

        • timhh@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          things that store it as word size for alignment purposes

          Nope. bools only need to be naturally aligned, so 1 byte.

          If you do

          struct SomeBools {
            bool a;
            bool b;
            bool c;
            bool d;
          };
          

          its 4 bytes.

          • brian@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            sure, but if you have a single bool in a stack frame it’s probably going to be more than a byte. on the heap definitely more than a byte

            • timhh@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              24 hours ago

              but if you have a single bool in a stack frame it’s probably going to be more than a byte.

              Nope. - if you can’t read RISC-V assembly, look at these lines

                      sb      a5,-17(s0)
              ...
                      sb      a5,-18(s0)
              ...
                      sb      a5,-19(s0)
              ...
              

              That is it storing the bools in single bytes. Also I only used RISC-V because I’m way more familiar with it than x86, but it will do the same thing.

              on the heap definitely more than a byte

              Nope, you can happily malloc(1) and store a bool in it, or malloc(4) and store 4 bools in it. A bool is 1 byte. Consider this a TIL moment.

              • brian@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                c++ guarantees that calls to malloc are aligned https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/c/malloc .

                you can call malloc(1) ofc, but calling malloc_usable_size(malloc(1)) is giving me 24, so it at least allocated 24 bytes for my 1, plus any tracking overhead

                yeah, as I said, in a stack frame. not surprised a compiler packed them into single bytes in the same frame (but I wouldn’t be that surprised the other way either), but the system v abi guarantees at least 4 byte alignment of a stack frame on entering a fn, so if you stored a single bool it’ll get 3+ extra bytes added on the next fn call.

                computers align things. you normally don’t have to think about it. Consider this a TIL moment.

                • timhh@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  but calling malloc_usable_size(malloc(1)) is giving me 24, so it at least allocated 24 bytes for my 1, plus any tracking overhead

                  Indeed. Padding exists. A bool is still one byte.

                  it’ll get 3+ extra bytes added on the next fn call.

                  …of padding. Jesus. Are you going to claim that uint16_t is not 2 bytes because it is sometimes followed by padding?

      • mmddmm@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Apart from dynamically typed languages which need to store the type with the value

        You know that depending on what your code does, the same C that people are talking upthread doesn’t even need to allocate memory to store a variable, right?

          • timhh@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I think he’s talking about if a variable only exists in registers. In which case it is the size of a register. But that’s true of everything that gets put in registers. You wouldn’t say uint16_t is word-sized because at some point it gets put into a word-sized register. That’s dumb.