[Mono-devel-list] Prevalence of pointer-integral-pointercastingin mono?

[Bernie Solomon]

I agree arguing from what is not stated is a little dangerous. But then if
it
isn't stated maybe you end up making assumptions that weren't intended.

I'm also just treating this as a thought exercise out of curiosity...

I believe there is more evidence that 128bit pointers (as in ones with
that amount of information as opposed to some strange storage format
which uses more space than information) won't work. If you look at
the spec for integer conversion it states than a native int to int64
conversion
is sign extend or zero extend (CONV_I or CONV_U) - to me this
implies I can write IL that relies on this and is value preserving and
hence pointers can't have more than 64 bits of information in them.

That is at least per the 1.1 spec - maybe it will change at some stage...

Bernie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Pryor" <jonpryor at vt.edu>
To: "Bernie Solomon" <bernard at ugs.com>
Cc: "Peter Colson" <pcolson at connexus.net.au>; "Mono Development List"
<mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Mono-devel-list] Prevalence of
pointer-integral-pointercastingin mono?