Re: new module 'popcount'

[Ben Pfaff]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

> I got around to reviewing this and noticed one minor problem:
> the code will mistakenly reject an implementation that (say)
> has a 72-bit word but where 8 bits are padding bits, i.e., they
> do not contribute to the value.  [...]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> At this point, IMO, it would be useful to add comments:

Many thanks to you both.  I committed these improvements.
-- 
"Implementation details are beyond the scope of the Java virtual
 machine specification.  One should not assume that every virtual
 machine implementation contains a giant squid."
--"Mr. Bunny's Big Cup o' Java"