Re: Q: void* vs. unsigned long
Ian D Romanick (idr@cs.pdx.edu)
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:37:35 -0800 (PST)
> But what we need here is "an integral type which can represent all
> possible pointer values". Unsigned long should be safe for that on all
> sane architectures/compilers[1] and might even be guaranteed by the C
> standard. Probably won't work on all DSPs though, but we're not likely to
> see any of those running Linux soon for other reasons.
IIRC, C9X defines intptr_t in inttypes.h that does just this.
--
He asks a girl if they can both sit in a chair,
but he doesn't get nervous: she's not really there!
http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~idr is the home of the Dancing Fool
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/