sizeof(size_t) 可以小于 sizeof(int) 吗？

Question

Can sizeof(size_t) be less than sizeof(int) ?

Do the C and/or C++ standards guarantee that using unsigned int for array indexing is always safe?

Answer 1

Yes, sizeof(size_t) can, in principle, be less than sizeof(int) . I don't know of any implementations where this is true, and it's likely that there are none. I can imagine an implementation with 64-bit int and 32-bit size_t .

But indexing an array with unsigned int is safe -- as long as the value of the index is within the bounds imposed by the length of the array. The argument to the [] operator is merely required to be an integer. It's not converted to size_t . It's defined in terms of pointer arithmetic, in which the + operator has one argument that's a pointer and another argument that is of any integer type.

If unsigned int is wider than size_t , then an unsigned int index value that exceeds SIZE_MAX will almost certainly cause problems because the array isn't that big. In C++14 and later, defining a type bigger than SIZE_MAX bytes is explicitly prohibited (3.9.2 [compound.types] paragraph 2). In earlier versions of C++, and in all versions of C, it isn't explicitly prohibited, but it's unlikely that any sane implementation would allow it.

Answer 2

[C answer]

Can sizeof(size_t) be less than sizeof(int) ?

Yes. The size of size_t can be less, more or the same as int as their relative sizes/ranges are not specified in C - only their minimum _MAX values: 65535, 32767.

IMO, sizeof(size_t) < sizeof(int) is a unicorn . Theoretical, but not seen.

Code could use the following to detect such beasties.

#include <limits.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#if SIZE_MAX < UINT_MAX
  #error Unexpected small size_t
#endif

Do the C and/or C++ standards guarantee that using unsigned int for array indexing is always safe?

In C, No.

Examples: A small array may only tolerate the indexes of [0 ... 2] - regardless of the type of the index - not the entire range of unsigned . A huge array may be index-able [0 ... UINT_MAX*42ull ] and so an unsigned cannot represent all valid indexes.

A size_t is wide enough to index all arrays.