Path: utzoo!censor!dybbuk!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uwm.edu!bionet!ames!vsi1!daver!tscs!tct!chip
From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Comparison functions for qsort() and bsearch()
Keywords: Sun, C++
Message-ID: <27C95508.15D0@tct.uucp>
Date: 25 Feb 91 18:18:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: tct.27C95508.15D0
References: <70450@microsoft.UUCP> <27B94945.5977@tct.uucp> <70777@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL
Lines: 22

According to jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK):
>If C++ is implemented on top of "object-oriented" architectures,
>it may well be that pointers to primitive types have a totally
>different representation that pointers to "Object" types.

This kind of distinction, while conceptually possible, would seem to
rule out a user's writing "operator new" and "operator delete", since
they generate or use pointers of type |void*| which subsequently will
be or previously have been used as "Object" addresses.

>A void* might then be considered roughly equivalent to a char* ...

Exactly equivalent, if compatibility with C libraries matters.

>...perhaps we can get away from the Un*x-like prejudice that the
>*only* way one can implement an architecture is as a very long array
>of bytes.

Please note that I am a long-time user of the '286 in large model, and
I am quite aware that a successful implementation of C or C++ does not
require a "very long array of bytes."  That issue, however, has almost
zero relevance to the convertability of a |void*|.