Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: (void *)
Message-ID: <5834@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 19:44:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5834
Posted: Sat Jul 27 19:44:51 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 19:44:51 EDT
References: <1035@homxa.UUCP> <921@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2462@sun.uucp>, <318@baylor.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 13

> I just realised a major problem with (void *). On machines like the HP-1000
> a pointer to a byte and a pointer to a word don't have the same bit-pattern.
> How are you supposed to deal with this without having a terribly in-efficient
> implementation of 'C'.

The obvious way to handle this one is to give "void *" the worst-case
representation, which will usually be that of "char *".  Since the code
that will use "void *" will be the same code that now uses "char *", it
would not appear that this will cause major efficiency problems that
weren't there already.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry