Re: portability of mc

[Roland Illig <roland illig gmx de>]

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.

Roland