On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 08/17/10 21:24, malc wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > > >> On 08/17/10 20:55, malc wrote: > >>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Blue Swirl wrote: > >>>>> The other thing that might be worth mentioning in the int/long section > >>>>> is that long is complicated in broken development environments such as > >>>>> Windows where it is only 32 bit :( > >>> > >>> There's absolutely nothing broken about LLP64 it's as valid as any other > >>> ABI. (That's to Jes) > >> > >> Well it works if you program for it, but it still doesn't make it any > >> good when you can't keep a pointer in a long to apply arithmetic to it. > >> Anyway point with the documentation is to make it clear that we rely on > >> being able to do long foo = (long)ptr; > > > > Which isn't (and never was) sanctioned by any standard, IOW not good. > > Well maybe this is where the problem is. Not being able to do this means > that we need a special integer type to cover this case if we wanted to > work on win64. Switching to long long would generate bad code on 32 bit > archs so thats not an option.
That's why [u]intptr_t was invented. > > Depending on your viewpoint it is either it not being a standard that is > bad, or the LLP64 that is bad. This doesn't really parse for me. > > Anyway this is personal preference. > > Jes > -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
