From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Christopher Li" Subject: Re: Pointer arithmetic error Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:00:29 -0700 Message-ID: <70318cbf0806270200l27aef92ctbc3fbd4f3cbf9f45@mail.gmail.com> References: <486428D7.8080603@cowlark.com> <70318cbf0806261651u7a163d54m4d100012bce5db49@mail.gmail.com> <48643191.307@cowlark.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.31]:46813 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754945AbYF0JAd (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:00:33 -0400 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so169401ywe.1 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:00:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <48643191.307@cowlark.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: David Given Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:17 PM, David Given wrote: > Hmm. True. But even so, it's still not right on my system, which doesn't > use 8-bit bytes. (It's word addressable where each word can contain any > value, so sizeof(int) == sizeof(double) == sizeof(char) == 1.) Ah, I see. I was thinking some thing else. What platform exactly is that? > Should there, then, be another symbol to define the number of bits in a > byte, distinct from the number of bits in a char? Byte need to big enough to hold the char. Using bits_in_byte is better. There might be other place in sparse assume byte is 8 bits. Chris