Re: Using int32_t instead of IV for code

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 05:08:33PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> At 04:55 PM 09-13-2001 -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> >In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
> >
> > >The attached patch makes all bytecode have a type of int32_t rather than
> > >IV; it also contains the other stuff I needed to get the tests running
> > >on my Alpha (modifications to config.h.in and register.c).
> >
> >I think this is a bad idea.  There simply is no guarantee that there's
> >a native integral type with 32 bits.  And having an int32_t type that
> >*isn't* 32-bits is just plain confusing.  Just ask anyone who's gotten
> >burnt by perl5's I32, which has the exact same problem.
> 
> Well, since bytecode is defined to be 32-bit, it makes sense to define it 
> as an int32_t type and have the definition of an int32_t be platform-specific.

I'd have thought it made sense to define it as a bytecode_t type, or
some such which could be platform specific.

-- 
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net