On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 07:15:57PM -0500, Tim Mooney wrote: > Finding a processor/OS combo where sizeof(pointer) != sizeof(int) is pretty > easy, however. How does this change your thinking? Wouldn't atomicity guarantees be a processor feature, and hence tied to word size (probably pointer width if you are taking full advantage of your CPU) rather than whatever CC might think sizeof(int) is ? If I've completely forgotten my architecture course, don't hesitate to write me a long rant, off-list of course... Nick.
