Date: Sat, 14 Oct 95 15:01 PDT From: pete@puffin.pelican.com (Pete Carah) To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tail dumps core Message-ID: <m0t4Edf-0000ReC@puffin.pelican.com> In-Reply-To: <199510102047.NAA11036@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199510102047.NAA11036@phaeton.artisoft.com> you write: >Oh, I understand that; I was commenting on the "neither" including the >calloc. >Garret's point of a double 0 not being a 0 bit value is valid, even >though it is really stretching things. I wouldn't expect a double value >to be zero if the structure had been zero'ed, futher using a double as >a flag value (the only real reason for a pre-zero) is not really good >programming because of the overhead involved. > >You could still do it with a non-explicit cast, though. > >I don't see how the int/short/long/char atomic integer types aren't >correct on all two's complement machines, though (ie: all recent >commercially available machines). PR1ME used a non-zero for NULL pointers (at least to char), and also had sizeof (char *) not equal to sizeof(int *). AM29k systems (and any other purely word-addressed system without extra bits in a word like a cray has) would likely have this last property too. -- Pete
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0t4Edf-0000ReC>