Re:Tell HN: C Experts Panel – Ask us anything about C
by cesarb on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @11:45AM
(#22867388)
Existing code would be using normal pointers, not fat pointers, so there would be no ABI break. New code using fat pointers would know that they fit into a pair of uintptr_t, so the size of uintptr_t would not need to change either.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: C Experts Panel – Ask us anything about C
by loeg on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @12:36PM
(#22868042)
I don't think we want a uintptr_t and uintptr2_t.
Re:Tell HN: C Experts Panel – Ask us anything about C
by monocasa on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @03:43PM
(#22870542)
IDK, it's not like it'd be an auto_ptr situation where you just don't use uintptr_t anymore and call the other one uintptr2_t. THere's different enough semantics that they both still make sesne.
Like, as someone who does real, real dirty stuff in Rust, usize as a uintptr equivalent gets used still even though fat pointers are about as well supported as you can imagine.