On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:22:46AM +0200, ext Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Before this fix, the u64 type would not be defined, causing
> x86emu/sys.c to fail to build:
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: ldq_u
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: *
>
> Since Keith requested usi
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> Before this fix, the u64 type would not be defined, causing
> x86emu/sys.c to fail to build:
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: ldq_u
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: *
>
> Since Keith requested using , converte
Before this fix, the u64 type would not be defined, causing
x86emu/sys.c to fail to build:
"sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: ldq_u
"sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: *
Since Keith requested using , converted all the x86emu
typedefs to use the stdint types.
Signed-off-by: Al
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:08:06 +0300, Tiago Vignatti
wrote:
> Watching the other replies from Keith, I've seen he's not so enthusiastic with
> the idea of not use stdint.h. Anyway, if this patch arrives on xserver, I'll
> be pushing to my libx86 tree either.
Right, I think all 'fixed' size object
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 02:03:53AM +0100, ext Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Before this fix, the u64 type would not be defined, causing
> x86emu/sys.c to fail to build:
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: ldq_u
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: *
>
> Since 64-bit types are no
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:12:52 -0700, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> Not yet - and I didn't dig to find out why, but some of the x86emu files
> that include this specifically avoid including system headers. (Could
> be more of the ancient xf86 module loader sillyness or something
> deeper.)
include/
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:03:53 -0700, Alan Coopersmith
> wrote:
>
>> Since 64-bit types are now required by x86emu, assumes all platforms
>> either have a 64-bit long or a 64-bit long long (defined by C99).
>
> Don't we assume stdint.h exists yet?
Not yet - and I didn't di
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:03:53 -0700, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> Since 64-bit types are now required by x86emu, assumes all platforms
> either have a 64-bit long or a 64-bit long long (defined by C99).
Don't we assume stdint.h exists yet?
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
pgpNk1IAuTQ77.pgp
Descriptio
Before this fix, the u64 type would not be defined, causing
x86emu/sys.c to fail to build:
"sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: ldq_u
"sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: *
Since 64-bit types are now required by x86emu, assumes all platforms
either have a 64-bit long or a 64-bit
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> Before this fix, the u64 type would not be defined, causing
> x86emu/sys.c to fail to build:
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: ldq_u
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: *
>
> Since 64-bit types are now required b
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 18:20 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Before this fix, the u64 type would not be defined, causing
> x86emu/sys.c to fail to build:
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: ldq_u
> "sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: *
>
> Since 64-bit types are now required
Before this fix, the u64 type would not be defined, causing
x86emu/sys.c to fail to build:
"sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: ldq_u
"sys.c", line 102: syntax error before or at: *
Since 64-bit types are now required by x86emu, assumes all platforms
either have a 64-bit long or a 64-bit
12 matches
Mail list logo
