>> Usually, that should never be a problem as casting from long to a pointer >> and back is really good coding style in modern C (about the same as not >> differing between function/code pointer and data pointers).
I think that size_t would be more appropriate than a signed long. If you need sign, than perhaps ptrdiff_t. Juan On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hendrik Sattler wrote: >> >> Am Samstag, 23. August 2008 02:34:35 schrieb Matthew Woehlke: >>> >>> Don't make assumptions about sizeof(long) or sizeof(void*)... not even >>> that they are the same (Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, decided - >>> as usual - to be different from everyone else and adopt a P64 model, >>> rather than LP64 used by *everyone* else). That's the big thing. I don't >>> know about kitware libraries, but I wouldn't expect much in the way of >>> "gotchas" regarding 64-bit builds and cmake... at least, not on >>> non-Windows platforms :-). >> >> Usually, that should never be a problem as casting from long to a pointer >> and back is really good coding style in modern C (about the same as not >> differing between function/code pointer and data pointers). > > Unless I misunderstood the above, you're missing "really good coding style > in modern C **unless you ever want to support Windows**"... > > -- > Matthew > Person A: It's an ISO standard. > Person B: ...And that means what? > --mal (http://theangryadmin.blogspot.com/2008/04/future.html) > > _______________________________________________ > CMake mailing list > CMake@cmake.org > http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake > _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake