This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [using gcc book] 5.20 double-word integers
- From: Chris Devers <cdevers at pobox dot com>
- To: Gabriel Paubert <paubert at iram dot es>
- Cc: GCC list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 14:55:43 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [using gcc book] 5.20 double-word integers
- References: <Pine.OSX.4.56.0308232126560.8695@macdaddy.local><20030826095248.GB7637@iram.es> <Pine.OSX.4.56.0308261045280.1141@macdaddy.local><20030826174441.GA12461@iram.es> <Pine.OSX.4.56.0308261353500.1141@macdaddy.local><Pine.OSX.4.56.0309011337020.9933@macdaddy.local> <20030901184738.A15923@mrt-lx1.iram.es>
- Reply-to: Chris Devers <cdevers at pobox dot com>
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> Sorry to be so late in suggesting this,
> I imagine that you have very little time.
I don't object to this suggestion in principle, but if the text as noted
in the earlier mail is substantially valid [???], I would prefer not to
make such a drastic change here.
I don't have the expertise to rewrite this material by myself, and this is
probably just one of many passages that could do for a complete rewrite.
There's just not enough time to rewrite everything sufficiently :(
So
* if the text as I suggested is just flat out wrong, then I won't use it.
* if someone can provide an rewrite of the section that is acceptable to
other members of the list, I will be happy to consider it.
* if on the other hand my suggestion gets the point across without raising
any new errors, I would prefer to go with that or something like that.
Thoughts?
--
Chris Devers cdevers@pobox.com
http://devers.homeip.net:8080/resume/