<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On 17 October 2013 19:18, Gabriel Dos Reis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gdr@axiomatics.org" target="_blank">gdr@axiomatics.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
</div></div>The implication in question is this:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
p == q => intptr_t(p) == intptr_t(q)<br>
<br>
</div>where p and q are pointers. I am having trouble following how, even on<br>
such exotic architecture, the implication will be affected.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can imagine that on a system concerned with security where sizeof(intptr_t) > sizeof(p) random salt is added to the intptr_t conversion which is removed when converting back to the pointer type.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I suppose the other implication that is on the mind of many people but<br>
not being discussed is<br>
<br>
p != q => intptr_t(p) != intptr_t(q)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not concerned about that, as p -> intptr_t(p) -> p has to result in a matching pointer. I don't see how that is workable if the implication above fails.</div>
</div>-- <br> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target="_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> (847) 691-1404
</div></div>