Even in today's world there are sysems (the ones i know for sure are atmel's avr and microchip's pic, both microcontrollers with Harvard architecture) for which the equality of dara and code pointers does not stand. By the way some PICs have a 12-14 or 24 bit wide program bus to complicate the issue. Il 16/gen/2016 21:59, "James K. Lowden" <jklowden at schemamania.org> ha scritto:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:41:41 -0500 > Richard Damon <Richard at Damon-Family.org> wrote: > > > there are machines where it doesn't work (you just need a larger > > program space than data space). > > Huh. An example of which is the "medium model" of the Intel 8086: > 20-bit code pointers and 16-bit data pointers. A machine for which C > compilers existed, and on which no Posix system will ever run (because > it lacks an MMU). Thanks for that. > > Until this very moment I thought the code/data schism of void* was a > "rights reservation" on the part of the compiler writers, permitting > them optimization opportunities. But there are historical examples, > and one can't rule out future ones. The warning is attached to > -pedantic for a reason. > > Yet we live in the real present. I admit there's probably no reason to > make code and data pointers interchangeable. But if sure would be nice > if the fine folks on the C standards committee would provide a more > convenient syntax, and standardize the existing practice that dlsym(2) > has exemplified for a quarter century. > > --jkl > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >
