On 2009-12-01 at 11:31 +0100, V. T. Mueller, Continum wrote: > does that mean that AIX/HP-UX/Solaris users with their vendor's > compilers will get stuck on this point?
Yes. It's a goof. The solution is easy: when Release Candidates (RCs) are announced, try to build them! You don't need to deploy it, but if nobody using a compiler other than GCC tries to build the release candidates with the options they want enabled, then these problems will slip through into the final releases. If you can build it and run some basic tests, even better. > which appears to be set to int64_t which boils down to > #define INT64_MAX INT64_C(9223372036854775807) > > Will it be safe to just change occurences of 128 to 64 in bignum.c > without breakting anything somewhere else? I'm not familiar with the bignum code and this is one of those weeks where I don't have time to go diving (I get home and crash). If memory serves, the code looked as though you need two int types, and one needs to be twice the size of the other. If you just lower the size of the larger to be the same as the smaller, I would expect things to break -- I'm guessing there is a reason for the differences. -Phil -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
