pointer representation (was: Re: effect of free())

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <2075 at munnari.oz.au> ok at cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:
>My point is that optimising compilers generally assume that "equals may
>be subsituted for equals" (that's what equality is all about), so that
>*correct* source code is very likely to be incorrectly *optimised*.

Any my point is that the code was NOT correct, because it relied on the
unwarranted assumption that C pointers' associated ring numbers were
preserved, while the C implementation specifically ignores the ring
numbers, which should be a tip-off that they should not be relied on.
I still maintain that the proper way to deal with this is via some
implementation-specific code that explicitly knows about ring numbers.