Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:59:17 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: Damien Neil <neild@misago.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: free() and const warnings Message-ID: <20010609155917.A2954@hellblazer.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <20010609004940.B50335@misago.org>; from neild@misago.org on Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 12:49:40AM -0700 References: <20010607195634.I724@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <XFMail.010607102051.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20010607124729.B4940@shade.nectar.com> <20010609004940.B50335@misago.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 12:49:40AM -0700, Damien Neil wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 12:47:30PM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > C99 says of uintptr_t only that for any valid pointer p, the following > > is true: > > > > (void *)(uintptr_t)p == (void *)p > > > > Likewise for intptr_t. I read that as covering both code and data > > pointers. > > C89, at least, does not guarantee that you can convert between code > and data pointers. I believe the same holds for C99. Agreed. The original point was whether or not a uintptr_t was big enough for both types of pointers. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010609155917.A2954>