This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: pointer <-> integer conversion warnings (bogus -Wall warnings)


On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 06:53:08PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>    Care to explain your reasoning?  
> 
> I'm sure we can all figure it out.

No, spell it out, please.  Amuse me.

>    Care to point to a system for which it fails?
> 
> The one released in 2008 that has 64 bit pointers and integers with 32
> bit size_t.

Bullshit.  64-bit pointers *implies* a 64-bit size_t.

The only system with which I am familiar for which it was plausable
that sizeof(size_t) < sizeof(void*) was 16-bit MSDOS systems.  In that
context one could have a 32-bit seg:offset pointer with a maximum
object size of 64k, which would allow you a 16-bit size_t.  But no
DOS compiler I ever used had a 16-bit size_t when far pointers were default.

There may have been other obscure systems for which this was true,
but none of them matter any more.  Not even 16-bit DOS.

> To match your tone I guess I'd have to make fun of you for confusing
> "virtually all code" with "alpha-linux" and express my shock that a C
> compiler maintainer would have such a sloppy attitude.

Go right ahead.

> Who cares?  What difference does it make, _really_?
> Especially if it means _rth_wins_!

Absolutely.


r~


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]