On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 3:27 PM, der Mouse wrote:
> 
> >Will be able to contain a pointer, sure.  But not necessarily, will be
> >at least as strictly aligned as a pointer.
> 
> You're completely wrong on this one.  intmax_t is by definition at  
> least as large and at least as alignment-strict as intptr_t, which in  
> turn is by definition at least as large and at least as alignment- 
> strict as a pointer.

I think Mouse is right.  intmax_t is guaranteed to be at least as large
as any other integer type (C99 committee draft N1124 section 7.18.1.5),
but I don't see any guarantees about the alignment of intmax_t relative
to the alignment of any other integer type.  intptr_t is guaranteed
to be convertible to and from any pointer (section 7.18.1.4), but I
see no guarantees about the alignment of intptr_t relative to the
alignment of any pointers, nor even any guarantees about the size of
intptr_t relative to the size of any pointers (for example, as Seebs
mentioned in another message, conversion between a pointer and an
intptr_t could involve removing or inserting some bits that are known to
have a constant value).

--apb (Alan Barrett)