On Tuesday, June 12, 2001, at 10:47 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> And is quite likely if basic things like the number conversion is bust.
> And in turn that is quite probable if (NV)INT_MIN is currently
> +2147483648.0
> as far as Darwin's gcc is concerned.
> I'll be a coffee that the problem will go away once INT_MIN is less
> than 0.
> [I may be paying out on this one. I already owe Andy Dougherty a coffee,
> IIRC. I'm on a safer bet, I feel, in saying that there won't be 100%
> test
> success until the INT_MIN is solved]
OK, this is sounding rather plausible.
I suggest we add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to this
conversation (as it includes Stan and other friendly Darwin compiler
gurus). Can someone write up a summary of what the apparent compiler
issue is and cc the Darwin list? That might help move things along.
-Fred
