Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: pointer alignment when int != char *
Message-ID: <6194@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 29-Jul-87 20:32:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6194
Posted: Wed Jul 29 20:32:28 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 00:51:27 EDT
References: <493@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <6061@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:3365 comp.unix.wizards:3484

In article <161@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
->>> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
->>>(long) is appropriate for portable code.  (If a (char *) won't fit into a
->>>(long), you have real problems!)
-I am aware of a seriously developed architecture where "long" was 64
-bits, and pointers were 128 bits.

Yup, you notice the dpANS for C doesn't guarantee that there will be an
integral type able to hold a pointer without loss of information.  It
does give rules for such a feature if it happens to be implemented, however.