Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> 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.? >>>> it's uintptr_t which should be used, if only as an intermediate cast - >>>> (unsigned long)(uintptr_t)ptr. >>> That's not possible because, IIRC, gcc must compile on C90 systems. >> >> We can just test for it with autoconf and typedef it if we don't have >> it. We can figure out what to typedef it to by comparing the sizeof >> void* to the sizeof the integer types--we already gather these sizes >> in the configure script anyhow, and use them in hwint.h. > > Given that all this seems to be about is avoiding warning messages on > some extremely unlikely architectures on which gcc may not run, I have > to question the sens of such heavyweight measures. Why not simply use > size_t? It would be adequate on every architecture anyone here knows > about.
I don't personally find these measures to be heavyweight. I find them to be fairly routine for the kind of portability we aim for. Only one person has to get them right once. But I'm fine with using size_t also, if it does the right thing on W64. Ian
