Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:13:12 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [patch] Second draft: a64l and l64a
In-Reply-To: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIOENPCDAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010604131121.16048A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> >   - please in the future post the diffs as plain text, not as binary
> >      attachments;
> I've had problems before where patches couldn't be applied due to line
> breaks added by the mail agent, so I've taken to sending diffs as
> attachments if they're meant to be applied, instead of just reviewed.

I was talking from the point of view of someone who needs to review the 
patches, not apply them (don't you have write access to the CVS?)

> > I'd think that interpreting the argument as an unsigned long would
> > produce reasonable results.
> I was talking about possibly changing the signatures to use unsigned
> long, but I suppose that simply treating them as such would be OK.

Given that glibc does that as well, it sounds plausible.

> > > +  printf ("a64l(\"EliRules!\")         -> %ld\n", a64l("EliRules!"));
> >
> > This line has a bug in it.
> 
> Hmmm - where exactly?  I see nothing wrong with it :-)

The missing smiley.