Kai Tietz wrote: > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30.05.2008 11:45:50: > >> 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? > > First of all it matters about warnings. The native build of w64 gcc is > full of 'cast from pointer to integer of different size. The second, IMHO > the more important reason, is that a general type to express a host > pointer scalar size would prevent such bugs as in PR/36386.
If what Andrew Pinski says is true, this is not a bug at all. Not that I'm against fixing warnings, of course; using long where size_t is meant is probably a hangover from the days when gcc had to compile on non-ISO C. You can't use ssize_t, though, as it's nonstandard. Andrew.
