[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t
From: |
Michael Livshin |
Subject: |
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t |
Date: |
26 May 2001 16:19:35 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Copyleft) |
Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> > the whole mess was motivated by me reading the latest (well, draft)
> > ANSI C standard and noticing that `long' is no longer required to be
> > the widest integral type...
>
> How do we get at the integral type that is guaranteed to hold all
> pointers?
currently, by the configure script (it tries `long', `long long' and
`int. in general the new C standard has types like int32_t, int64_t
etc., so maybe we could try them too).
C is kind of messy.
--
All ITS machines now have hardware for a new machine instruction --
BFM
Be Fruitful and Multiply.
Please update your programs.
- scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/25
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/25
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/05/25
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/05/26
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/30
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/31
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/31