Re: portability of mc

Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:41:02AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:

On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 10:09 +0200, Roland Illig wrote:

Pavel Roskin wrote:

No.  In particular, I don't think we need to support Win64, where long
cannot hold a pointer.

Why not? What's wrong about that?

Because it's a common assumption that long can hold any pointer.

which doesn't really change the fact, that it is wrong ... size_t isn't
exactly a new concept.

And even size_t has nothing to do with the representation of pointers. There's also a difference between object pointers and function pointers. I really hope you already know that.

The C standards do not guarantee that any conversion of integers, object pointers and function pointers makes sense, except for the cases mentioned in ISO C99 6.2.5#26.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]