[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE |
Date: |
15 Nov 2000 18:49:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) |
Hi Kaveh,
We have a problem in CVS Autoconf: it uses the negative size array
trick to compute some compiler known values such as sizeof. AFAIK you
are using a similar technique in GCC.
The problem we face is that the bundled cc under HP rejects the
computations of the array size. Presumably while
int foo[sizeof(int)]
would work, this doesn't
int foo[4 == sizeof(int)]
(well, at least we know that the full formula is always rejected even
if it resolves to a valid size).
IIRC you are using the switch trick. Did you face the same problem?
Are your macros *always* using this trick, or only when cross-compiling?
- Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Pavel Roskin, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Akim Demaille, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Pavel Roskin, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Lars J. Aas, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Akim Demaille, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Pavel Roskin, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Akim Demaille, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Pavel Roskin, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Alexandre Oliva, 2000/11/15
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Pavel Roskin, 2000/11/16
- Re: Overflow protection in _AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE, Alexandre Oliva, 2000/11/16