Haai,
"Claudio Jeker" <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote:
> This has not much to do with OpenBSD.
On the contrary: these issues touch the fundaments of UNIX programming.
> As for OpenBSD, it only runs on two types of machines: ILP32 and I32LP64.
> Any other type of machine that is not covered by these two types will
> not run OpenBSD.
Oh yes, this is not NetBSD, me's well aware... And yet, metries hard to
satisfy basic portability when feasible. This is consistent with OpenBSD
practice, at least if the manual pages are anything to go by.
> In both cases size_t is defined as unsigned long which is the same as
> uintptr_t and the same size as pointer.
Of course, in practice that's the case. You'll really get no argument
from me there.
> Now if SIZE_MAX is the highest address is a different thing.
> On OpenBSD 0..SIZE_MAX will cover the address room (in most cases
> it covers actually more then what is possible). The highest valid
> address is in most cases less than SIZE_MAX.
Yes, the {,in}famous halfway split... for calculations involving
already valid {addresse,offset,size}s that hardly matters, however.
What *does* matter, is the potential lack of equivalence of the types.
Which, as you pointed out, does not affect OpenBSD (at this time), yet
might be a portability issue. Hence me raising it.
Baai,
--zeurkous.
--
Friggin' Machines!
