PR 25512: pointer overflow defined?

[Robert Dewar]

>| Yes, but the only defined semantics of these conversions is that you
>| get the same
>| pointer back, you cannot say anything else about the values. If you
>
>You get the same pointer back, *when* you've done a round trip.
>For
>
>    pointer type -> integer type
>
>or
>
>    integer type -> pointer type
>
>or
>
>    T* -> U*
>  
>
Yes, that's right, that's what I meant, I just was using shorthand, 
since I assume
this requirement is familiar to everyone (it is explicitly discussed in the
original K&R for instance).

>there is no "round trip" requirement for the values to be ligt.
>  
>
Sorry, the typo at the end has me failing to guess what you meant :-(

>However, we have an obligation to define what those mappings are.
>  
>
Why?

>
>  
>