Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!cgy
From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Whose code should we break? ( was Re: 64 bit C )
Message-ID: <65527@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 91 01:37:14 GMT
References: <MARC.91Feb14085851@marc.watson.ibm.com> <1215@dms.UUCP> <65469@brunix.UUCP>
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
Reply-To: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Distribution: comp.arch
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 20

In article <65469@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>In article <1215@dms.UUCP> albaugh@dms.UUCP (Mike Albaugh) writes:
>>From article <MARC.91Feb14085851@marc.watson.ibm.com>, by marc@marc.watson.ibm.com (Marc Auslander):
>>> Anyone out there for sizeof int == 4?
>
>But I want sizeof long == sizeof char *.  There are quite a few applications
>in which I find myself writing my own memory manager; I need some type
>in which I can flick the bits on my pointers, portably.

Well, this has aroused some comment; I shouldn't have said "portably."  I
should have said "portably to anywhere I know about."  Does anyone know of
a modern machine on which (char *)((unsigned long)("Yow")+1) is not "ow"?
(Forgetting word-addressed machines, like Crays.)  This is a serious
question, not rhetorical.

Curtis

"I tried living in the real world
 Instead of a shell
 But I was bored before I even began." - The Smiths