To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (a basic version)
Enterprise License (extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Free PVS-Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at

If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

What is sizeof(&X) expression equal to,…

What is sizeof(&X) expression equal to, X being defined as "char *X[n];"?

Mar 15 2011

Consider the following sample.

char *(X[64]);
cout << sizeof(&X) << endl;

The question is: what value will be printed? The right answer is "the pointer's size". In particular, it may be number 4 in a Win32 program or 8 in a Win64 program.

The answer above seems obvious, yet there are two subtleties which often cause confusion. Let's examine another sample:

char *(X[64]);
memset(&X, 0, sizeof(&X));

This code is incorrect: we empty only a part of the X array. There are two reasons for such errors.

Reason one

The VS 2005 compiler has an error that causes "sizeof(&X)" to return the array's size. As a result, this code, being built in VS 2005, will correctly empty the whole array. Accordingly, some programmers get misled and consider this code correct. The compiler's error disappears after installing SP1.

By the way, here you are an interesting test on the subject I encountered in the code of Google C++ Mocking Framework:

class TestForSP1 {
private: // GCC complains if x_ is used by sizeof before defining it.
  static char x_[100];
  // VS 2005 RTM incorrectly reports sizeof(&x) as 100, and that value
  // is used to trigger 'invalid negative array size' error. If you
  // see this error, upgrade to VS 2005 SP1 since Google Mock will not
  // compile in VS 2005 RTM.
  static char 
      sizeof(&x_) != 100 ? 1 : -1];

Reason two

The first function's argument is "&X". Actually taking of the address is not necessary here. We are handling the array all the same. That is, the following two records have the same correct result:

memset(&X, 0, sizeof(X));
memset(X, 0, sizeof(X));

This also confuses programmers and they think that sizeof(&X) and sizeof(X) will have the same result too. But it is a mistake.

Popular related articles
Characteristics of PVS-Studio Analyzer by the Example of EFL Core Libraries, 10-15% of False Positives

Date: Jul 31 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

After I wrote quite a big article about the analysis of the Tizen OS code, I received a large number of questions concerning the percentage of false positives and the density of errors (how many erro…
Static analysis as part of the development process in Unreal Engine

Date: Jun 27 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Unreal Engine continues to develop as new code is added and previously written code is changed. What is the inevitable consequence of ongoing development in a project? The emergence of new bugs in th…
PVS-Studio ROI

Date: Jan 30 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

Occasionally, we're asked a question, what monetary value the company will receive from using PVS-Studio. We decided to draw up a response in the form of an article and provide tables, which will sho…
Appreciate Static Code Analysis!

Date: Oct 16 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

I am really astonished by the capabilities of static code analysis even though I am one of the developers of PVS-Studio analyzer myself. The tool surprised me the other day as it turned out to be sma…
The Evil within the Comparison Functions

Date: May 19 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Perhaps, readers remember my article titled "Last line effect". It describes a pattern I've once noticed: in most cases programmers make an error in the last line of similar text blocks. Now I want t…
The Last Line Effect

Date: May 31 2014

Author: Andrey Karpov

I have studied many errors caused by the use of the Copy-Paste method, and can assure you that programmers most often tend to make mistakes in the last fragment of a homogeneous code block. I have ne…
The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything

Date: Apr 14 2016

Author: Andrey Karpov

Yes, you've guessed correctly - the answer is "42". In this article you will find 42 recommendations about coding in C++ that can help a programmer avoid a lot of errors, save time and effort. The au…
PVS-Studio for Java

Date: Jan 17 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

In the seventh version of the PVS-Studio static analyzer, we added support of the Java language. It's time for a brief story of how we've started making support of the Java language, how far we've co…
The way static analyzers fight against false positives, and why they do it

Date: Mar 20 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

In my previous article I wrote that I don't like the approach of evaluating the efficiency of static analyzers with the help of synthetic tests. In that article, I give the example of a code fragment…
Free PVS-Studio for those who develops open source projects

Date: Dec 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

On the New 2019 year's eve, a PVS-Studio team decided to make a nice gift for all contributors of open-source projects hosted on GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket. They are given free usage of PVS-Studio s…

Comments (0)

Next comments
This website uses cookies and other technology to provide you a more personalized experience. By continuing the view of our web-pages you accept the terms of using these files. If you don't want your personal data to be processed, please, leave this site.
Learn More →