🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4es27i$hd5@alterdial.UU.NET>,  <rex@aussie.com> wrote:
> larry.jones@sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
>> The
>> response to another Defect Report noted that the list of integer types
>> is exhaustive and may not be extended,

> Larry, I recall a discussion in committee re mapping pointers to some 
> integral type. Somewhere we require that I believe. IBM's AS400 came up as it 
> has (I think) 128-bit addresses but no integer type that big. I thought we 
> allowed magic integer types for some things but I may be misremembering.

You're misremembering (it was *my* Defect Report, in Kona). The mapping
from pointers to some integral type doesn't have to exist if no integral
type is "big enough". We also said that "big enough" is an implementation
determined concept, and is *not* a matter of comparing sizeofs. For
example, pointers might be 32 bits, but only use 20 of them, so a 24-bit
short might be "big enough".

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | If you lie to the compiler,
cdwf@cityscape.co.uk   (work, preferred) | it will get its revenge.
clive@stdc.demon.co.uk (home)            |   - Henry Spencer