Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.arch,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: get size of malloc'd object
Message-ID: <2168@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Jun-86 07:23:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2168
Posted: Thu Jun 26 07:23:25 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jun-86 02:50:14 EDT
References: <165@daisy.UUCP> <334@valid.UUCP> <2206@peora.UUCP> <718@wjvax.wjvax.UUCP> <6922@ki4pv.UUCP>
Reply-To: chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.unix:8410 net.unix-wizards:18611 net.arch:3586 net.lang.c:9596

In article <6922@ki4pv.UUCP> tanner@ki4pv.UUCP (Tanner Andrews) writes:
>The problem with alignments, it would appear to me, would be easily
>solved by allowing for the largest machine type, which should be
>double.

Why?

If you mean to state that in every C compiler now available, the
largest machine type is `double', then I might believe you.  But
if you mean that the largest machine type in any future C compiler
will always be `double'---well, to put it mildly, I doubt it.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu