On Thursday 03 January 2002 03:43 pm, Hong Zhang wrote:
> Anyway, we should use some kind of macro for this purpose.
That's more or less what C99 does.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Also, the UL[L] should probably be on the inside of the ():
> >
> > stacklow => '(~0xfffULL)',
>
> I still don't see this one is safer than my proposal.
>
>~((uintptr_t) 0xfff);
Well, if you ever want to specify a constant longer than 0x7fff, you'd
better put a 'u', 'ul' or 'u
> Also, the UL[L] should probably be on the inside of the ():
>
> stacklow => '(~0xfffULL)',
I still don't see this one is safer than my proposal.
~((uintptr_t) 0xfff);
Anyway, we should use some kind of macro for this purpose.
#ifndef foo
#define foo(a) ((uintptr_t) (a))
#endif
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:46:31AM -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we should be using the Configure output to determine what postfix to
> > use, based on the size of ints, longs, long longs, etc., and pointers,
> > rather than "almost always"
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:46:31AM -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should be using the Configure output to determine what postfix to
> > use, based on the size of ints, longs, long longs, etc., and pointers,
> > rather than "almost always" b
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:46:31AM -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 03 January 2002 12:33 am, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > > Looks like the chunk_base logic doesn't work on 64-bit Solaris. Every
> > > test failure I checked was centered
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Thursday 03 January 2002 12:33 am, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Looks like the chunk_base logic doesn't work on 64-bit Solaris. Every
> > test failure I checked was centered around an inaccesable address coming
> > out of STACK_CHUNK_BASE(*top) [li
On Thursday 03 January 2002 08:11 am, Chip Turner wrote:
> The U was there for sign-correctness. Without it, gcc complains in a
> number of places. I haven't tested it on 64-bit platforms, but on
> 32-bit intel, it is necessary.
>
> uintptr_t sounds good to me, though; always using pointers seem
I am not sure why we need the U postfix in the first place. For literal
like ~0xFFF, the compiler should automatically sign-extends to our
expected size. Personally, I prefer to using ([u]intptr_t) ~0xFFF,
which is more portable. So we don't have to deal with U, UL, i64.
It is possible to use 32-
On Thursday 03 January 2002 12:33 am, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Looks like the chunk_base logic doesn't work on 64-bit Solaris. Every
> test failure I checked was centered around an inaccesable address coming
> out of STACK_CHUNK_BASE(*top) [line 85] . I'll dig deeper tomorrow. Er,
> today.
Pa
Looks like the chunk_base logic doesn't work on 64-bit Solaris. Every test
failure I checked was centered around an inaccesable address coming out of
STACK_CHUNK_BASE(*top) [line 85] . I'll dig deeper tomorrow. Er, today.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
11 matches
Mail list logo
