Re: 3.1.52 fails to build in hppa/linux

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Rafael Laboissiere <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Rafael Laboissiere <address@hidden> [2009-02-22 20:28]:
>
>> * John W. Eaton <address@hidden> [2009-02-22 13:34]:
>>
>> > On 22-Feb-2009, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>> >
>> > | * Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden> [2009-02-22 18:55]:
>> > |
>> > | > I don't say it's impossible, but I do not see how it can actually be
>> > | > possible, unless int64_t is a typedef of double (which would really be
>> > | > weird).
>> > |
>> > | Not even that causes a compilation error on my amd64 Debian system.
>> >
>> > How is int64_t defined on the systems where the failure happens?
>>
>> Tell me how I can discover that, please, and I will do it on the failing
>> architectures.
>
> It is actually simple: I just ran cpp on a file containing "#include
> <stdint.h>".  Here are the results:
>
> On amd64 ("good" architecture):
>
>    typedef long int int64_t;
>    typedef unsigned long int uint64_t;
>
> On mipsel ("bad" architecture):
>
>    typedef long long int int64_t;
>    typedef unsigned long long int uint64_t;
>
> --
> Rafael
>

I don't recokn this is the reason. I bet that on the amd64,
OCTAVE_INT_USE_LONG_DOUBLE is defined, unlike on mipsel. Isn't that
so?

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz