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