On Fri, 2020-05-29 at 01:10 +, ky...@disroot.org wrote:
> as of version 4.3, with the inclusion of gnulib, make now appears to
> require c99 support in order to be compiled correctly.
>
> since this is the case, the configure script should check if flags
> are necessary to enable c99 support,
as of version 4.3, with the inclusion of gnulib, make now appears to require
c99 support in order to be compiled correctly.
since this is the case, the configure script should check if flags are
necessary to enable c99 support, as several non-gnu compilers do not enable it
by default.
--- make
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 17:07 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote:
> Thoughts?
I'm fine with these choices, insofar as I can tell. I reserve the
right to change my mind after seeing the full scope of the proposal :).
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 22:07, Pete Dietl wrote:
> Upon taking a look at gnulib, I found that they have arithmetic wrap
> functions which guarantee wrapping.
> We can use these functions to guarantee that overflow will just wrap
> around.
>
> Let's leave the shift operators out for now.
>
> comp i
Upon taking a look at gnulib, I found that they have arithmetic wrap
functions which guarantee wrapping.
We can use these functions to guarantee that overflow will just wrap around.
Let's leave the shift operators out for now.
comp is for complement. ~
In most scheme implementations, providing o
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 22:07 +0200, Jouke Witteveen wrote:
> Here is a thought: The current support for numeric variables is
> limited to unsigned numbers. We could choose to stick with that!
I'm not sure how this would work... it works today because we have no
subtraction and all numbers make can
On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 13:47 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote:
> Technically, the C standard allows for machines which don't use 2's
> complement. So should we consider our LONG_MIN to be -2^63 + 1?
>
> Also, signed arithmetic overflow is undefined behavior, so should we
> also indicate that we have undefi
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 8:47 PM Pete Dietl wrote:
>
> A few questions.
>
> Technically, the C standard allows for machines which don't use 2's
> complement.
> So should we consider our LONG_MIN to be -2^63 + 1?
>
> Also, signed arithmetic overflow is undefined behavior, so should we also
> indica
Any suggestions or comments?
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:47 PM Pete Dietl wrote:
>
> A few questions.
>
> Technically, the C standard allows for machines which don't use 2's
> complement.
> So should we consider our LONG_MIN to be -2^63 + 1?
>
> Also, signed arithmetic overflow is undefined behavi
