[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH][2.6.6-rc3] gcc-3.4.0 fixes
    William Lee Irwin III writes:
    > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 04:52:59PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
    > > You're assuming pointers have uniform representation.
    > > C makes no such guarantees, and machines _have_ had
    > > different types of representations in the past.
    > > Some not-so-obsolete 64-bit machines in effect use fat
    > > representations for pointers to functions (descriptors),
    > > but they usually cheat and use pointers to the descriptors
    > > instead. However, a C implementation could legally
    > > represent a function pointer as a 128-bit value, while
    > > data pointers remain 64 bits.
    > IIRC for all types foo, sizeof(foo *) <= sizeof(void *), no?
    > If so, 128-bit function pointers implies >= 128-bit void pointers.

    No, sizeof(foo*) <= sizeof(void*) only holds for data pointers.
    The C standard is very explicit about not guaranteeing any
    relationship between function pointers and void*. However,
    a function pointer can be converted to a pointer to a different
    function type and back again, without loss of information.

    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: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.021 / U:4.816 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site