"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02.06.2008
10:28:12:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>
> Richard Gue
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
values for building the value and
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
>>> values for building the value and assume that a long/unsigned long s
it's uintptr_t which should be used, if only as an intermediate cast -
(unsigned long)(uintptr_t)ptr.
That's not possible because, IIRC, gcc must compile on C90 systems.
Right, so the only type remaining is size_t. IIRC there is problem for
this type on some targets, too. AFAIC there are 24-
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30.05.2008 12:07:49:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
> >> values for building the value and assume
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
>> values for building the value and assume that a long/unsigned long scalar
>> is wide enough for a pointer. This is at
Kai Tietz wrote:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30.05.2008 11:45:50:
>
>> Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>>> as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
>>> values for building the value and assume that a long/unsigned long
> scalar
>>> is wide enough for a pointer.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
> values for building the value and assume that a long/unsigned long scalar
> is wide enough for a pointer. This is at least for w64 target not true.
Andrew,
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30.05.2008 11:45:50:
> Kai Tietz wrote:
>
> > as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
> > values for building the value and assume that a long/unsigned long
scalar
> > is wide enough for a pointer. This is at least
Kai Tietz wrote:
> as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
> values for building the value and assume that a long/unsigned long scalar
> is wide enough for a pointer. This is at least for w64 target not true. So
> I want to know, if it would be good to introduce an
Hi,
as I noticed, most hash value calculations are trying to use pointer
values for building the value and assume that a long/unsigned long scalar
is wide enough for a pointer. This is at least for w64 target not true. So
I want to know, if it would be good to introduce an gcc specific type for
13 matches
Mail list logo