From 2899132835948020067
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e94695845965b249
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-12-08 11:19:30 PST
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: sparky!uunet!taumet!steve
From: steve@taumet.com (Steve Clamage)
Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
Message-ID: <1992Dec8.190622.7674@taumet.com>
Organization: TauMetric Corporation
References: <1992Dec2.111003.23102@jyu.fi> <1992Dec2.205330.10372@meaddata.com> <1992Dec4.070720.13056@lth.se> <1992Dec07.222242.18703@microsoft.com> <1992Dec8.103218.27689@lth.se>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 19:06:22 GMT
Lines: 13

dag@seldon.control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes:

>If there are any problems, for example, if all significant bits of the
>pointers will not fit into a long integer, I think we're back to
>square one again and have to define "operator<" for pointers.

There are machines where pointers are larger than longs.  If memory
serves, longs are 32 bits and pointers are 48 bits on the IBM AS400
for example.  (But don't quote me.)
-- 

Steve Clamage, TauMetric Corp, steve@taumet.com
Vice Chair, ANSI C++ Committee, X3J16