[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ptrdiff_t is not uintptr_t, damnit
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 01:29:21AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> 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.

... while unsigned long long is 64bit, which is definitely not what
one wants. For sparse it's "unsigned long is special".

FWIW, this patch puts it in linux/types.h as unsigned long. Eventually
we might want to switch explicit casts to/from unsigned long in such contexts
to uintptr_t, but for now we can't start complaining about unsigned long -
too many places are using it. I'll see what can be done to get sane
assistance from sparse in that kind of work...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-20 03:02    [W:0.067 / U:5.752 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site