Subject: Re: Assming char == signed char - example ...
To: None <s.k.stevens@ic.ac.uk>
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@highland.com.au>
List: tech-ports
Date: 06/21/1995 12:03:20
[changed mailing list, the topic has changed]
Excerpts from mail: 20-Jun-95 Re: Assming char == signed ..
s.k.stevens@ic.ac.uk (1302)
> But I'd imagine we'll wait until we're confident we've found most of the
> signed char problems before intergrating back into any m/c independent
> code.
Should the changes be delayed? I just wonder if perhaphs, in the case
where there is a clear problem with machine independant code (along with
a simple well defined fix) that perhaphs such changes should be merged
earlier.
I assume that, like anything, it is a trade off. On the one side, you
don't want #ifdef arm's (say) appearing before they are known to be
correct and working while on another other side you don't want to delay
by too much fixes to things like `unsigned char ' (1) as otherwize you
could end up with several ports fixing the same problem (a slim chance
but still there :-). Oh and on a third side there is the added overhead
of having to co-ordinating a multi stage merge....
Just a ramble,
Andrew
----
(1) I supose this sys/lib/libkern stuff could possibly come under this
----
Excerpts from mail: 20-Jun-95 Re: Assming char == signed ..
s.k.stevens@ic.ac.uk (1302)
> > (Just don't mention the rugby^D^D^D^D^Dwar ... :-)
> Did we lose then ? ;-)
Hang on. For you to be able to loose the semi, we had to be `kicked'
out in the quater finals. I don't remember this ... :-)