christos wrote:
> Allen Briggs  <briggs@netbsd.org> wrote:
> >What's wrong with having a generic pointer type that it's safe to do
> >byte-wise arithmetic on (which is what I've considered caddr_t to be)?
> 
> That is the problem "char *" (caddr_t) is not a generic pointer. The API's
> that wanted generic pointers should have had "void *" not "caddr_t".
> "caddr_t" predates "void" in `c', so back then it was used as a generic
> pointer for the lack of something better. Now we have something better
> and we should be using it.

So now you're relying on the brokenness of gcc allowing you
to perform arithmetic operations on a `void *' instead?

glen