From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 26 17:48:09 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA14967 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway.net.hk (john@gateway.hk.linkage.net [202.76.7.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA14885 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from john@localhost) by gateway.net.hk (8.7.4/8.7.3) id IAA12189; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 08:38:01 +0800 (HKT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 08:38:00 +0800 (HKT) From: John Beukema To: Robert Withrow cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: GNU binutils port In-Reply-To: <199604260126.VAA25217@spooky.rwwa.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, Robert Withrow wrote: > > >I really doubt sizeof(void *) != sizeof(??? *) any time soon. Besides it is not just the size of the pointer that must agree but how to increment it. *Char_ptr++ and *large_struct++ are different. jbeukema > > > > It happens every day, but not on the i386. > > Especially with function pointers, which I didn't realize until > recently even after decades of programming. Sigh. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 592 8935, Net: witr@rwwa.COM > > >