Skip to content

Conversation

saghul
Copy link
Contributor

@saghul saghul commented Dec 22, 2023

Skipped (for now):

@saghul saghul requested a review from bnoordhuis December 22, 2023 21:50
@saghul saghul marked this pull request as ready for review December 22, 2023 21:50
} else if (flags == JS_DTOA_VAR_FORMAT) {
int64_t i64;
char buf1[70], *ptr;
if (d > (double)MAX_SAFE_INTEGER || d < (double)-MAX_SAFE_INTEGER)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@bnoordhuis See past action runs for the error. Let me know what you think of this.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Contributor

we support old GCC so I'm not sure what that commit fixes?

gcc renamed the built-in type from __int128_t to __int128 sometime during the 4.x series. The internet suggests it was in gcc 4.6 and we test 4.8.

@saghul
Copy link
Contributor Author

saghul commented Dec 22, 2023

we support old GCC so I'm not sure what that commit fixes?

gcc renamed the built-in type from __int128_t to __int128 sometime during the 4.x series. The internet suggests it was in gcc 4.6 and we test 4.8.

I can apply the patch, or we can wait for someone to complain... :-)

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Contributor

I'd wait :)

That patch is.... let's say suboptimal. It'd be better to switch to __int128_t when gcc <= 4.6.

(I think the type was introduced in 3.x. I hope we don't plan on supporting that.)

@saghul saghul merged commit 2fb838c into master Dec 22, 2023
@saghul saghul deleted the sync branch December 22, 2023 23:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants