Sorry for the late reply -- great hint, thanks very much.
In a perfect world, I would need a solution that also works on Windows
(with the ported unix/p9 tools), but I'll probably build the
sam9f-unix port by iru- [1] for now.
Btw, can anybody point me to the initial ^ and/or _ command patch?
In
On 5/16/22, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i still don't understand it. if you want a pointer of size 1 what
> keeps you from using a generic char or uint8 pointer?
>
I think what he's asking is "what's keeping everyone else from using...".
I guess we're all evangelists at heart.
Lucio.
--
i still don't understand it. if you want a pointer of size 1 what
keeps you from using a generic char or uint8 pointer?
On 5/16/22, adr wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2022, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>> it's void* because that can be assigned between other pointer types
>> without a cast.x = malloc(sizeof(*
On Mon, 16 May 2022, Charles Forsyth wrote:
it's void* because that can be assigned between other pointer types without a
cast.x = malloc(sizeof(*x));
instead of x = (T*)malloc(sizeof(*x)); which just adds clutter.
Similarly it's just free(x) instead of free((void*)x); (or free((uchar*)x) as I
it's void* because that can be assigned between other pointer types without
a cast.
x = malloc(sizeof(*x)); instead of x = (T*)malloc(sizeof(*x)); which just
adds clutter.
Similarly it's just free(x) instead of free((void*)x); (or free((uchar*)x)
as I understand your suggestion).
On Sun, 15 May 2
I can see some use of void* arithmetic for malloc/free or
when you’re doing your own allocation for various object
types, where a size of 1 would be handy.
I wonder what a FarC would like!
> On May 15, 2022, at 11:27 PM, Skip Tavakkolian
> wrote:
>
>
> If void can have a size, why not 4, 8 o
Quoth Skip Tavakkolian:
If void can have a size, why not 4, 8 or 16?
Really, if it would have a size, it should be zero. And thus p+n==p.
Not too useful. It’s fine as it is.
--
Humm
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fan
