On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 12:57, Melvin Smith wrote:
>
> Doh! You are right, I missed that.
> It should be opcode_t. Also, I'm not convinced that our INTVAL size should
> differ from opcode_t.
> Someone convince me.
Only if you want to do maximal native math. You don't want opcode_t to
be the same
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 01:44 PM 5/6/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >When I try to build parrot with gcc, I get 754 warnings. Obviously I
> >won't post them all here, but some typical ones are:
>
> I'm working on some of them. I saw quite a few issues while
> reworking the byte
At 01:44 PM 5/6/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>When I try to build parrot with gcc, I get 754 warnings. Obviously I
>won't post them all here, but some typical ones are:
Firstly I just did a big patch to make the bytecode portable, so thats
the reason you are seeing packfile issues, however they aren't
