From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MWXQB-00079X-6y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:19:55 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MWXQ6-00073d-E3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:19:54 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34116 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MWXQ6-00073U-7o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:19:50 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:43756)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1MWXQ5-0004oc-Tn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:19:50 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1MWXQ4-0002Ow-RE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:19:49 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 01/25] Introduce QEMU dictionary data type
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:19:44 +0100
References: <1248818713-11261-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<5b31733c0907300804n5ccb1c7cla77e193b90718eb6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A71B89C.4030803@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A71B89C.4030803@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200907301619.46432.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, dlaor@redhat.com, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Filip Navara <filip.navara@gmail.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

On Thursday 30 July 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/30/2009 06:04 PM, Filip Navara wrote:
> > Again, intptr_t should be used here in long term. long is probably
> > fine for now before I post the Win64 patches.
>
> No, for the long term we shouldn't be putting pointers into integers or
> vice versa unless there's a really good reason to do so.

I'd go further than that. Don't put integers into pointers *at all*. It's 
really not worth it. Use a proper union/struct/opaque-pointer-to-value.

Paul