On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Alex Bochannek wrote:
> In the interest of avoiding conflicts with other compilers who have a
> more stict interpretation of the standard, how about not defining as
> register structs that contain arrays? Seems like the safest way to
> resolve this. (01)
At the cost of being slower on a machine in which it does fit in a
register. Try taking a look at the definition of the item in question and
you'll see what is actually going on. (02)
Why don't you just #define register into oblivion on your broken
version of gcc and be done with it? (03)
-- Mark -- (04)
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://chm.cim3.net/forum/nls-technical/
Shared Files: http://chm.cim3.net/file/work/project/nls-restore/
Community Portal: http://www.computerhistory.org/
To Post: mailto:nls-technical@chm.cim3.net
Community Wiki: http://chm.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NLS_Restoration (06)
|