Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Question of Ignorance
Message-ID: <36@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 13:27:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.36
Posted: Mon May 13 13:27:58 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 07:10:29 EDT
References: <198@unccvax.UUCP> <1427@bbncca.ARPA> <5590@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: throopw@vm.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 18
Xref: linus net.micro.68k:700 net.lang.c:4705

In article <5590@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> ... I recommend using one of the two constructs
>> 
>>     ( longptr == (long *)32 )
>> or  ( (int)longptr == 32 )
>> 
>> which are guaranteed to do what you want ...
>
>Argh, WRONG!!  Turn that "(int)" into "(long)" and I might agree.  You
>have no guarantees that an int is long enough to hold a pointer.

I'm not sure what ANSI C says about pointers fitting into longs, but I
don't think there is any guarantee there either.  If there IS such a
guarantee, It doesn't seem like a good idea, since I know of 
machines upon which pointers don't even fit in longs.  Of course, 
pointers would have a better *chance* of fitting into a long :-).
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw