INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3
REPLYADDR tnp@invalid.invalid
REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP
MSGID: 6ada1256
REPLY: <20240829191334.570e88c7507598ffe5b28d87@eircom.net> 495c1a62
PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
On 29/08/2024 19:13, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:57:57 +0100
> John Aldridge wrote:
>
>> In article <20240829102839.5bb67af25e568ebabc65ede6@eircom.net>,
>> steveo@eircom.net says...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:32:49 +0100
>>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don?t think I?d fault either decision though the fact that we?ve
>>>> ended up with two conventions does make writing/maintaining portable
>>>> code a bit more annoying,
>>>
>>> Portable code should only rely on the standards not
>>> implementations, some very weird possibilities are legal within the
>>> standard.
>>
>> Heh, yes. I worked for several years on a machine where a null pointer
>> wasn't all bits zero, and where char* was a different size to any other
>> pointer.
>
> That rings vague bells, what was it ?
>
24 bit pointers were I think quite common, but isn't the 'null pointer'
*defined* to be
(Char *)0 ?
Otherwise how could you test for it?
--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
"Saki"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 124/5016 129/305 153/757
SEEN-BY: 153/7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930 220/70 221/1 6 360 226/17
SEEN-BY: 226/30 100 227/114 229/110 111 114 200 206 300 317 400 426
SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120 266/512 267/800 282/1038
SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364
SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 3 100
SEEN-BY: 770/330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042 5058/104 5075/35
PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426
|
