RE: bytecode and sizeof(IV)

2001-09-18 Thread Brent Dax
Russ Allbery: # Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: # # > Yep, and the latest "pedantic" patch doesn't help. Also, I'm seeing # > this, which is weird: # # > ld -ldbm -ldb -lm -liconv -o test_prog global_setup.o # interpreter.o parrot.o register.o basic_opcodes.o memory.o # bytecode.o s

Re: bytecode and sizeof(IV)

2001-09-18 Thread Russ Allbery
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yep, and the latest "pedantic" patch doesn't help. Also, I'm seeing > this, which is weird: > ld -ldbm -ldb -lm -liconv -o test_prog global_setup.o interpreter.o parrot.o >register.o basic_opcodes.o memory.o bytecode.o string.o strnative.o test_main.

Re: [PATCH Makefile.in] RE: [doughera@lafayette.edu: Re: bytecode and sizeof(IV)]

2001-09-18 Thread Mattia Barbon
> Easy Makefile.in patch. I was worried that Win32 might need the linker > (the change to $(LD) was submitted as part of a Win32 compatibility > patch) but that doesn't seem to be the case. I don't have a MinGW Fine here Regards Mattia