RE: [PATCH] changing IV to opcode_t!!

[Hong Zhang]

Do we want the opcode to be so complicated? I thought we are
going to use this kind of thing for generic pointers. The "p"
member of opcode does not make any sense to me.

Hong

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