From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2921 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 07:52:31 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 07:52:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 29745 invoked by alias); 29 Feb 2000 07:52:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9922 Received: (qmail 29733 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 07:52:25 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:52:24 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200002290752.IAA08914@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Sven Wischnowsky's message of Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:45:16 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: Precompiled wordcode zsh functions I wrote: > I definitely want to stay with 32 bits. Although currently it is > dependent of the size of integers, I hope to make that architecture > independent and took care to always use the type `wordcode' instead of > `int'. I still have to check -- do we have a configure test for the > size of ints? I forgot to ask: *are* there any machines with sizeof(int) == 8? And if yes, do they have sizeof(short) == 4? And about the threshold: when we make the wordcode files architecture independent, we probably shouldn't make it relative to the page size. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de