On 22 September 2006 17:45, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Friday 22 September 2006 16:56, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 22 September 2006 16:01, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Howarth) writes:
>>>> Looking at the libffi/src/powerpc/ffi.c file, I assume that I should
>>>> have the same...
>>>>
>>>> *next_arg++ = (unsigned long)(char *)ecif->rvalue;
>>>
>>> Sure looks like you want uintptr_t there. I think using "unsigned
>>> long" is just setting yourself up for failure on some future system.
>>
>> 64 bits ought to be enough for anybody! </famouslastwords>
>
> I think Ian means there are stupid, broken systems where long is smaller
> than a pointer (64-bit windows anyone?).
Well, yeh. LLP64 exists. Then again, 64 bits *isn't* going to be enough
for everybody for all time either. :) It's Friday afternoon, and it's just
gone five past beer o'clock, you weren't expecting a sensible comment from me
were you ??!?
Have a good weekend everyone, I'm out of here. Jack, FWIW I totally agree
with Ian (when I'm being serious), uintptr_t is the right thing to use because
it's defined as an integer of whatever size is big enough to contain any
pointer on the target system, and is therefore guaranteed to work and be
correct everywhere and forever; it's made-for-purpose to the job.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
