On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 07:15:57PM -0500, Tim Mooney wrote:
> Finding a processor/OS combo where sizeof(pointer) != sizeof(int) is pretty
> easy, however. How does this change your thinking?
Wouldn't atomicity guarantees be a processor feature, and hence tied
to word size (probably pointer width if you are taking full advantage
of your CPU) rather than whatever CC might think sizeof(int) is ?
If I've completely forgotten my architecture course, don't hesitate
to write me a long rant, off-list of course...