Ronan Waide wrote:
> I'm applying this as is. A better choice would be for emacs to
> support bignums, maybe...
If you compile XEmacs on a 64 bit compiler, you will have no problem.
And XEmacs is seriously looking into direct bignum support with little
overhead for numbers that are still small.
On June 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> This field was being used in bbdb/mh-cache-key as if it was always an
> int. The following simple patch seems to have fixed the problem. I'm
> unsure whether or not `(cdr inode)' might be a better choice.
>
> chad
I'm applying this as is. A better choic
