[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PURESIZE increased (again)
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: PURESIZE increased (again) |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:26:25 +0300 |
> Cc: address@hidden
> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:52:10 +0200
>
> Different data types (UNION_something or what it was?)?
Should it matter? Looking at the code, it sound like in both cases,
Lisp_Object should take the same amount of storage. (I don't have
access to a 64-bit machine where I'm typing this, so I cannot verify
this by compiling.)
> Different alignment?
The alignment should be the same since it's the same architecture and
the same compiler.
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), (continued)
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Stefan Monnier, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/26
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), David Kastrup, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Stefan Monnier, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Ken Raeburn, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Ken Raeburn, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Andreas Schwab, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28