At 07:33 AM 1/2/01 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 07:26:39AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 01:10 PM 12/31/00 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > > but you seem to agree that porting to most embedded type systems is
> more
> > > > of an OS (and testing!) issue than compilation. if other complex enough
> > >
> > >I think there are true limits imposed by the more limited CPUs like
> > >address space. I think there might be nasty assumptions one easily
> > >makes that work only on 32-bit or more address spaces.
> >
> > Any assumptions spring to mind, besides "we can eat lots of memory"?
>
>None right now but then again it's my early morning precoffee brain...
>Are there any places with 32b ints and 16b ptrs? If so, casting ints
>to pointers and back would be even more debatable than usual.
I'm going to try really hard to avoid that particular pitfall, if for no
other reason than you can set things on the VMS C compilers such that you
have 64-bit pointers and 32-bit ints by default. (Takes some work, but it's
doable) I think some of the platforms do Odd Things for pointers to
functions as well that might cause this assumption to fail.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
