Re: [Bug-wget] wget 1.11.4 on interix(3.5)

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Micah Cowan <address@hidden> writes:

> Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>> Micah Cowan <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> Hm... well, what about a check for C99 first, and then a fallback on
>>> checking for HAVE_STDINT_H?
>> 
>> Isn't HAVE_STDINT_H a C99 thing?  C89 doesn't seem to mention it.
>
> I thought HAVE_STDINT_H is more a configure-script thing...

Sorry, I meant stdint.h, the header file.

The code was careful to test for stdint.h and if not found, it would
assume that pointers fit into unsigned long.  It still seems like a
reasonable assumption (lacking proper uintptr_t, at least), and I
don't understand how exactly it failed on Interix.  To fail, the
system would need to both not support stdint.h in any form, and have
Win64-style pointers larger than longs.  Possible, but not very
likely.

> There's the other possibility, of trying to avoid casting a pointer
> to an integer type in the first place. I haven't looked much at this
> code, though, and honestly probably won't any time real soon.

The code casts pointer to integer in two places: the first is to
implement an "invalid pointer" constant, and the second to hash a
pointer value by identity.  I'm not sure if you can eliminate
uintptr_t from those places without essentially reinventing it.