>>30
The thing you know those aren't remotely useful and you just try to pull bullshit out of your ass so you look good on an internet forum.
>>36
Remember what I said about far/near/long pointers? Read again becauser you apparantly can't even grasp the concept of reading and coming up with a proper argument. I've made the point that void* existed in the first place is solely because you cannot expect the size of the pointer to be constant, when I said pointer size are uniform, I meant the current 32bit x86 platform, yes I missed that point, you caught it, great.
Also sizeof(int) is compiler specific on 64bit platforms, it could be defined as 32 bit or 64 bit, since int simply means integer. I could argue the int on 32 bit platforms, is it 16 bits or 32 bits. Again, some older compilers defines int as 16 bits rather than 32bits.
These replies just shows /prog/ doesn't know shit about the system they work on and confuses everything that's compiler defined vs system defined. A pointer in 64 bit system, natively should be 64 bit due to register width. x86_64 is an abnomination with it's 32bit PC (and some others as well since it's an extention and not an overhaul).