On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 12:15:06PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> >Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
>
> >>It's not likely to be a portability problem,
>
>
> >To NULL or not to NULL, this is the question.
>
> I introduced a macro, depending on a symbol HAS_NON_ZERO_NULL, wh
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
It's not likely to be a portability problem,
To NULL or not to NULL, this is the question.
I introduced a macro, depending on a symbol HAS_NON_ZERO_NULL, which
should be set for these architecures.
Currently interpreter.c only, other files
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:09:39AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-interpreter->ctx.int_reg_base->prev = NULL;
It's not likely to be a portability problem, as I seem to remember that the C
FAQ is only able to mention one very obscure platform where NULL was not
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:09:39AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -/* Initialize the integer register chunk */
> -interpreter->ctx.int_reg_base->used = 0;
> +/* Initialize the register chunks */
>interpreter->ctx.int_reg_base->free = FRAMES_PER_INT_REG_CHUNK;
> -
