Ever seen an object larger than SIZE_MAX bytes? How about SIZE_MAX * SIZE_MAX bytes on x86-64?pic.twitter.com/AncfvROab0
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Multiple things. The most important is the compiler's inability to handle objects > PTRDIFF_MAX in a consistent manner.
I consider this a bug in compilers. Which would be nice to fix. This is not a requirement of some standard.
But I don't expect compilers to be fixed to deal with objects larger than SIZE_MAX. Broken toopic.twitter.com/VphageihwR
But C also reqs an obj of size n*m be produced, or calloc fail. Since the former is not possible, latter is mandatory.
Why the former is not possible?
because of the definitions of size_t and of SIZE_MAX
You cannot apply sizeof to a memory block so there is no problem here, right?
Then, yes, you cannot apply sizeof to objects larger than SIZE_MAX. Does it mean that such objects cannot exist? No.
It just means that such sizeof is UB. There is no a filed issue in tis-interpreter for this specifically only due to #20 and #22.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.