Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!decvax!ima!haddock!karl From: karl@haddock.UUCP (Karl Heuer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: pointer alignment when int != char * Message-ID: <688@haddock.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 19:31:27 EDT Article-I.D.: haddock.688 Posted: Mon Jul 6 19:31:27 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jul-87 01:37:58 EDT References: <493@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <6061@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3812@spool.WISC.EDU> Reply-To: karl@haddock.ISC.COM.UUCP (Karl Heuer) Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston Lines: 16 Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:2877 comp.unix.wizards:3142 In article <3812@spool.WISC.EDU> lm@cottage.WISC.EDU (Larry McVoy) writes: >In article <6061@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>(long) is appropriate for portable code. (If a (char *) won't fit into a >>(long), you have real problems!) Hasn't ANSI removed all pretense of pointers being integerizable? >I'm not sure this is true anymore. Don't some supercomputers make >longs 32 bits, long longs 64 bits, and have addresses > 32 bits and < 64 bits? >I seem to remember that someone said something like that recently. Probably my article, which was hypothetical. I was less concerned with the cast of pointer to int, which is nonportable anyway, than with the kosherness of having size_t and ptrdiff_t be larger than unsigned long. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint