Kai Tietz wrote: > as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer > values for building the value and assume that a long/unsigned long scalar > is wide enough for a pointer. This is at least for w64 target not true. So > I want to know, if it would be good to introduce an gcc specific type for > those kind of casts, or to use ssize_t/size_t.?
Why would it matter? Are there any circumstances is which not using the upper part of an address will reduce performance or break something? Andrew.
