Re: [RFA/TESTSUITE] build schedlock.c on 64-bit platforms

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
> |> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 05:16:05PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> |> > Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> |> > 
> |> > |> >  	args[i] = 1;
> |> > |> >> -	res = pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, thread_function, (void *)i);
> |> > |> >> 
> |> > |> 
> |> > |> Try:
> |> > |> 
> |> > |>   (((char *) NULL) + i)
> |> > |> 
> |> > |> and what ever the reverse of that is ....
> |> > 
> |> > That is even less portable than the above.
> |> 
> |> Really?  What's non-portable about it?
> 
> NULL is not an object, and the C standard does not define any meaning for
> the above expression.  On the other hand, the effect of a cast from
> integer to pointer is implementation-defined (although it might trap).

What about this then:

static char *null_char_pointer = NULL;

	(null_char_pointer + i)

and:

	(i - null_char_pointer)

:-)