Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: > For the record, a Py_uintptr_t version works and has the same > performance. Would you agree to it or is there still some menacing > oddity from the i386 days lurking around?
Technically, it's still dodgy: as the gcc manual notes in: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Arrays-and-pointers-implementation.html#Arrays-and-pointers-implementation ". That is, one may not use integer arithmetic to avoid the undefined behavior of pointer arithmetic as proscribed in C99 6.5.6/8." I can't see as much scope for problems with the uintptr_t version. But just because I can't anticipate the problems, it doesn't mean they don't exist. It really would be better to avoid the undefined behaviour if at all possible. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10044> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
