On 8/27/19 4:23 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
Paul Smith wrote:
I saw this warning on Windows as well. I seem to recall that this was
done on purpose to pack data structures more tightly, which can save a
lot of memory on large build systems.
However looking at it now I don't think it will actually e
Paul Smith wrote:
I saw this warning on Windows as well. I seem to recall that this was
done on purpose to pack data structures more tightly, which can save a
lot of memory on large build systems.
However looking at it now I don't think it will actually end up saving
any space.
I don't either
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 12:32 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Use unsigned int, not unsigned short. Without this patch, c99
> complains ‘warning: nonportable bit-field type’.
I saw this warning on Windows as well. I seem to recall that this was
done on purpose to pack data structures more tightly, whi
* src/dep.h (DEP):
* src/function.c (struct function_table_entry):
Use unsigned int, not unsigned short. Without this patch, c99
complains ‘warning: nonportable bit-field type’.
---
src/dep.h | 10 +-
src/function.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --
