[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits |
Date: |
20 Nov 2003 11:49:17 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> > Once LSB is in place, I would like us to get rid of XFASTINT
> > all-together. It's a potential danger lurking to hit us.
>
> Um, in the LSB code, XFASTINT is the same as XINT...
>
Exactly!
Which is why keeping it in the code when _most_ systems use
LSB could leave some mis-uses (storing a negative int there)
undetected until someone hits a border case on some non-LSB
system... which will be very hard to debug.
Better be proactive and get rid of those XFASTINT and XSETFASTINT
things all-together (or at least make them equal to XINT and XSETINT
on all systems)!
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- tags in the 3 lowest bits, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/19
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Kim F. Storm, 2003/11/19
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/20
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/21
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Kim F. Storm, 2003/11/21
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, David Kastrup, 2003/11/21
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Kim F. Storm, 2003/11/21
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/23