In message <200702122342.SAA01359@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>, der Mouse writes:
>> Then use intmax_t instead.  intmax_t is defined as holding the
>> largest integral value and will be able to contain a pointer as well.

>Will be able to contain a pointer, sure.  But not necessarily, will be
>at least as strictly aligned as a pointer.

To be maximally picky:

intmax_t can hold a pointer *if any integral type can*.

I can't imagine us ever porting to a system where that assumption wouldn't
hold, but it should be pointed out that it IS an assumption.

-s