[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts)
From: |
Bruce Korb |
Subject: |
Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts) |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:29:57 -0700 |
"Gary V. Vaughan" wrote:
> Suggestions?
1. Demand an ANSI compiler or better. Anyone still working with
anything older is a hobbiest and can go grab GCC 2.7.1 and
bootstrap. No sympathy from me.
2. Recast everything as "ptr_t" which is a typedef for "char*".
Amdhal is the only system I know of with 64 bit proc pointers
and 32 bit data pointers. If you gotta support Amdhal, then
kludge some sort of hack for that weirdo platform.
- ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), libtool, 2001/09/05
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/06
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/06
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), libtool, 2001/09/06
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/07
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/07
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Robert Collins, 2001/09/08
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Bruce Korb, 2001/09/08
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/10
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts),
Bruce Korb <=
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/10
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/11
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Bruce Korb, 2001/09/12
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/13
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/13
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/13
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/13
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan, 2001/09/13
- Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Tim Mooney, 2001/09/13