Re: [PATCH] ptrdiff_t is not uintptr_t, damnit

[Anton Altaparmakov]

Hi,

On 20 Aug 2007, at 01:19, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 19 August 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> > is wrong; for one thing, it's a bad C (it's what uintptr_t is for;  
> > in general
> > we are not even promised that ptrdiff_t is large enough to hold a  
> > pointer,
>
> ISTR we don't *have* a uintptr_t on all architectures, or that would
> be the appropriate thing to use in these 32/64 bit ABI scenarios.
>
>
> > Use unsigned long or uintptr_t instead.
>
> I suspect you mean "unsigned long long"...

No he doesn't.  "unsigned long" is guaranteed to be large enough to  
hold a pointer (at least on Linux anyway).

On a 32-bit arch "unsigned long" is 32-bit and pointers are 32-bit.

On a 64-bit archi "unsigned long" is 64-bit and pointers are 64-bit.

Best regards,

	Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer, http://www.linux-ntfs.org/


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/