On Jul 26, 2016, at 1:08 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
> Is the below patch ok?
Ok. Thanks. Such changes are trivial, usual and customary.
Mike Stump writes:
> On Jul 25, 2016, at 5:00 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
> wrote:
>>
>> The below patch fixes tests that fail for the avr target, because they
>> assume ints are atleast 32 bits wide and pointers and longs have the
>> same size.
>>
>> I've required int32plus support for on
On Jul 25, 2016, at 5:00 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
>
> The below patch fixes tests that fail for the avr target, because they
> assume ints are atleast 32 bits wide and pointers and longs have the
> same size.
>
> I've required int32plus support for one test, and for the other two,
Hi,
The below patch fixes tests that fail for the avr target, because they
assume ints are atleast 32 bits wide and pointers and longs have the
same size.
I've required int32plus support for one test, and for the other two,
I've introduced a cast to intptr_t to avoid the pointer <-> int