Re: [PATCH] changing IV to opcode_t!!

[Simon Cozens]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Nope. opcode_t should be the native opcode type for the platform we're 
> compiling on. No need for fancy unions--configure should find out the 
> integer type that works out right for the platform and the bytecode and use 
> that.

I thought the whole point was that on some platforms there *isn't* an
integer type that works right.

> >> Earlier there was some discussion about changing typedef long IV
> >> to
> >> typedef union {
> >>   IV i;
> >>   void* p;
> >> } opcode_t;

Oh, I see the nub of the problem; no, this is fixing the wrong thing.
The idea was that an IV would be a union of a long (or similar) and a
pointer.

-- 
I did write and prove correct a 20-line program in January, but I made
the mistake of testing it on our VAX and it had an error, which two
weeks of searching didn't uncover, so there went one publication out the
window.  - David Gries, 1980