RE: [PATCH] changing IV to opcode_t!!

[Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs]

Ok...let me try to get this straight and I'll repatch...

opcode_t should be something that will represent the native opcode type.  In
most cases it should just be long; however, there might be special systems
where it is somehting different (int, long long, etc...).  IV should be a
union with a long and void* member so that we can cast from a long to a
pointer.

Is that correct?

-----Original Message-----
From: Hong Zhang
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: 9/18/2001 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: [PATCH] changing IV to opcode_t!!


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;