From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: USE_LSB_TAG not supported on this platform Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:34:40 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <56B658E0.6090508@cs.ucla.edu> References: <86powcjei0.wl-herbert@mailbox.org> <56B3F962.8010203@cs.ucla.edu> <86mvrejegc.wl-herbert@mailbox.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1454790911 2225 80.91.229.3 (6 Feb 2016 20:35:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 20:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Herbert J. Skuhra" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 06 21:35:03 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aS9ZN-0007CN-57 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 21:35:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56649 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aS9ZM-0008JY-Dc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:35:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44349) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aS9ZF-0008J4-3R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:34:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aS9ZB-0006ZP-U1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:34:53 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:52510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aS9ZB-0006ZH-Ns for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:34:49 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFEB160E48; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:34:45 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 1gexRzO9koNd; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:34:45 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2074160F5C; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:34:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id jYbFHWpptd6j; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:34:44 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-100-32-155-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [100.32.155.148]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D190E160E48; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:34:44 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 In-Reply-To: <86mvrejegc.wl-herbert@mailbox.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:199428 Archived-At: Herbert J. Skuhra wrote: > INTPTR_MAX=0x7fffffff > EMACS_INT_MAX=0x7fffffffffffffffLL > > Before the commit mentioned above both are 0x7fffffff. Commit d6585a910ed3e9e0e43c093b5fbfeb6d56b703b4 should not have affected EMACS_INT_MAX, and I don't see how it did. I assume you are not configuring with --with-wide-int, so the reason EMACS_INT_MAX has that large value is due to the following tests in src/lisp.h: # if INTPTR_MAX <= 0 # error "INTPTR_MAX misconfigured" # elif INTPTR_MAX <= INT_MAX >> NONPOINTER_BITS && !defined WIDE_EMACS_INT ... # elif INTPTR_MAX <= LONG_MAX >> NONPOINTER_BITS && !defined WIDE_EMACS_INT ... # elif INTPTR_MAX <= LLONG_MAX ... # define EMACS_INT_MAX LLONG_MAX #endif Is the value of NONPOINTER_BITS 0 on your platform, or 3? If 0, is this correct? That is, does malloc ever return a pointer that, when treated as an integer, is not a multiple of 8? If malloc always returns a multiple of 8, then we should be able to work around the problem by setting NONPOINTER_BITS to 0 on your platform.