Обсуждение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Problems with running v6.3 on DIGITAL UNIX

> :-? I've looked at both 6.2.1 and 6.3 and have been unable to find a
> single '0L' in either version. I've looked in all .h files in src/include,
> not just src/include/catalog.
>
>
> =09Pedro.

Didn't look very hard :-)

A quick:
   find . -name '*.c' -exec grep 0L {} \;
finds 27 occurrences of 0L


Andrew

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin                             University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk    (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL:   http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel:   (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890                    (Home) +44(0)1372 275775

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:

>> :-? I've looked at both 6.2.1 and 6.3 and have been unable to find a
>> single '0L' in either version. I've looked in all .h files in src/include,
>> not just src/include/catalog.
>>
>>
>> =09Pedro.
>
>Didn't look very hard :-)
>
>A quick:
>   find . -name '*.c' -exec grep 0L {} \;
>finds 27 occurrences of 0L

Well, not exactly. The thing is '0l', instead of '0L', both in 6.3 and
6.2.1. I'm rebuilding the beast now. I think that the problem *might* be
in some '-1L' which have been converted to '-1'. Perhaps there is a
problem with the sign expansion. I'll let you know what happens.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro José Lobo Perea                   Tel:    +34 1 336 78 19
Centro de Cálculo                       Fax:    +34 1 331 92 29
EUIT Telecomunicación - UPM             e-mail: pjlobo@euitt.upm.es