John W. Linville wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:53:11PM +0200, tzachi perelstein wrote:
I can be even more explicitly and suggest [.8, .16, .32, .64]. What do you think?
I think I like that even better.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:09:59PM -0600, Tolunay Orkun wrote:
It would break compatibility with existing scripts and documentation of everyone else. I think we should maintain earlier definitions at least for existing 32-bit implementations.
Perhaps...if that is the prevailing logic, then I think my original proposal (just adding a .ll) makes the most sense.
Still, I think the bit-width based modifiers is the cleaner solution.
Tzachi, perhaps you can #ifdef the cli code to only use the [.8, ..., .64] for new and/or 64-bit platforms?
Just a thought...
John