As said on #794 there was nothing wrong in those sizeof expressions, if anything they weren't as readable as possible; and the real issue is a bug in cppcheck.

This said, the changes here look fine, and will indeed work around that cppcheck issue, and IMO makes that pointer_size logic a little clearer. So, LGTM.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.