> I'd have thought it made sense to define it as a bytecode_t type, or > some such which could be platform specific. It is better called opcode_t, since we are not using bytecode anyway. Hong
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Simon Cozens
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Andy Dougherty
- RE: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Hong Zhang
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Philip Kendall
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Andy Dougherty
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Dan Sugalski
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Buddha Buck
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Paul Johnson
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Dan Sugalski
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Philip Kendall
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Hong Zhang
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Simon Cozens
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Bart Lateur
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Michael Maraist
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Dan Sugalski
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Michael Maraist
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Bart Lateur
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Michael Maraist
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Dan Sugalski
- Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code Nathan Torkington