26/09/2018 12:18, Luca Boccassi:
> On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 10:15 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > Rather than relying on the target machine architecture, use the
> > size of a pointer from the compiler to determine if we are 64-bits
> > or not. This allows correct behaviour when you pass -m32 as a
On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 10:15 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Rather than relying on the target machine architecture, use the
> size of a pointer from the compiler to determine if we are 64-bits
> or not. This allows correct behaviour when you pass -m32 as a compile
> option. It also allows us to us
On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 10:15 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Rather than relying on the target machine architecture, use the
> size of a pointer from the compiler to determine if we are 64-bits
> or not. This allows correct behaviour when you pass -m32 as a compile
> option. It also allows us to us
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:15:36AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Rather than relying on the target machine architecture, use the
> size of a pointer from the compiler to determine if we are 64-bits
> or not. This allows correct behaviour when you pass -m32 as a compile
> option. It also allows u
Rather than relying on the target machine architecture, use the
size of a pointer from the compiler to determine if we are 64-bits
or not. This allows correct behaviour when you pass -m32 as a compile
option. It also allows us to use this value repeatedly throughout the
repo rather than continually
5 matches
Mail list logo
