On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andrea Shepard wrote:
> There are plenty of archs where the virtual address space is larger than
> any single object can be; lots and lots of old real-mode x86 compilers,
> for example.
This is why I keep saying "(provided that the address space is flat)".
Pleas
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:55:48AM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with sizeof(long) == sizeof(int), but I assure
> you that C89 does require sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void *) [more
> precisely, that a valid value of type 'void*' can be cast to 'unsigned
> long' and back without lo
I don't think this conversation is going anywhere constructive, but I
wish to correct a factual error before I drop the subject.
> Really? where? It doesn't seem to be in the C89 standard I just flipped
> through.
You are quoting C99, not C89. The thing we are arguing about was
changed in the 1
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Thanks for the comments. Sorry if my reply is long-winded, but you
> left me no other choice. :)
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>> Could you open a ticket on trac?
>
> Done: https://trac.torproject.org/p
