Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:48:55 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall command.c config.c Message-ID: <200109251748.NAA05122@repulse.cnchost.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:37:01 MDT." <200109251537.f8PFb1761123@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> : > I never understood the restriction of why a function ptr > : > can't be cast to void*. It is not like you are going to > : > create self-modifying functions..... > : > : It's because function pointers might be larger than "void *". E.g., on > : i386's in real mode (or in protected mode using "far" pointers), function > : pointers might be "far" and "void *" might be "near". > : > : > Using %x or %lx for > : > printing a fn ptr is as wrong as using %p. And to me %p is > : > likely to be the better choice. > : > : All are wrong. > > We need a %F for functions :-). This is a hole in the ansi spec. %F is already taken (%f and %F differ in the letter-case of inf, infinity and nan) but %P is not. %P for Procedures! Until then I'd suggest using %p. Since it is no worse than %x and we are not likely to port FreeBSD to a machine which has smaller data space than code space. Also, if and when %P is added you have to check far fewer places (people print many more numbers than addresses). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200109251748.NAA05122>