Subject: Re: PTRTOINT64() / INT64TOPTR()
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/18/2004 21:33:40
>> I'm not sure why we use uint64_t. It could predate uintptr_t. What does
>> cvs blame say?
>We use uint64_t there because it's the largest pointer size of any
>platform we support. This means that a 32-bit sysctl running on a
>sparc64 system (for example) will work properly.
no no no. you misunderstand me.
i know we're using u_int64_t because of the 32/64 interoperabilization
that it gets us. i also get that casting the pointer to a uintptr_t
will make it into an unsigned integer that won't get sign extended
upon being cast into 64 bits.
what i was mildly confused by was the need for, and definition of, the
why do we need it? after all, we already have size_t and unsigned
how does it differ from a size_t? aren't they the same bit length and
why does it differ from a size_t? size_t is sometimes an unsigned int
and sometimes an unsigned long and sometimes an unsigned long int, and
uintptr_t is more often an unsigned long (or unsigned long int), but
is unsigned int in a couple of places. why isn't it just an unsigned
long all over the place?
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."