At 12:05 AM 10/5/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Thursday 04 October 2001 11:40 pm, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> > >Well, that obviously should be MAX_whatever and MIN_whatever.
> > >But sufficient for now, since that's probably a configure thing.
> >
> > Yes and No. If our inline const
On Thursday 04 October 2001 11:40 pm, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> >Well, that obviously should be MAX_whatever and MIN_whatever.
> >But sufficient for now, since that's probably a configure thing.
>
> Yes and No. If our inline constants are always going to be 32 bits then 2
> ** 31 should alwa
On Thursday 04 October 2001 11:40 pm, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> >Well, that obviously should be MAX_whatever and MIN_whatever.
> >But sufficient for now, since that's probably a configure thing.
>
> Yes and No. If our inline constants are always going to be 32 bits then 2
> ** 31 should alwa
Original Message-
From: Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs
To: 'Bryan C. Warnock '; Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs; ''[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
'
Sent: 10/4/2001 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: [PATCH] forcing packfile to opcode_t.
Bryan wrote --
>> Ok, I was put in a burlap sack and beaten for my fi
Bryan wrote --
>> Ok, I was put in a burlap sack and beaten for my first attempt at
>>this;
>> hopefully this attempt will go better. Based on everyone's (read:
Dan's)
>> comments I have changed the patch to NOT move integer constants to the
>> constant table. Instead, the assembler dies if you
On Thursday 04 October 2001 03:51 pm, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> Ok, I was put in a burlap sack and beaten for my first attempt at this;
> hopefully this attempt will go better. Based on everyone's (read: Dan's)
> comments I have changed the patch to NOT move integer constants to the
> consta
