On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:12:18 -0500
mdroth wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 01:32:52PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:20:58 -0500
> > Michael Roth wrote:
> >
> > > With the introduction of native list types, we now have types such as
> > > int64List where the 'value' fi
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 01:32:52PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:20:58 -0500
> Michael Roth wrote:
>
> > With the introduction of native list types, we now have types such as
> > int64List where the 'value' field is not a pointer, but the actual
> > 64-bit value.
> >
> >
On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:20:58 -0500
Michael Roth wrote:
> With the introduction of native list types, we now have types such as
> int64List where the 'value' field is not a pointer, but the actual
> 64-bit value.
>
> On 32-bit architectures, this can lead to situations where 'next' field
> offset
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 06:38:35AM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 27.05.2013 05:20, schrieb Michael Roth:
> > With the introduction of native list types, we now have types such as
> > int64List where the 'value' field is not a pointer, but the actual
> > 64-bit value.
> >
> > On 32-bit architecture
Am 27.05.2013 05:20, schrieb Michael Roth:
> With the introduction of native list types, we now have types such as
> int64List where the 'value' field is not a pointer, but the actual
> 64-bit value.
>
> On 32-bit architectures, this can lead to situations where 'next' field
> offset in GenericList
With the introduction of native list types, we now have types such as
int64List where the 'value' field is not a pointer, but the actual
64-bit value.
On 32-bit architectures, this can lead to situations where 'next' field
offset in GenericList does not correspond to the 'next' field in the
types
