Tom Kistner wrote: > David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>> I saw that that particular problem was fixed. But I still have this
>> scary feeling that it hadn't really been developed with portability in
>> mind.
>
> The stuff you found was copypasta sloppiness. I'm usually not in the
> habit of using integer as pointers and vice versa, so if gcc shuts up on
> -Wall it's good enough for me(tm).
>
>> The obvious brokenness is fixed, and now it compiles without screaming
>> "I am broken!" at you. But I'd be a little happier if I know it had
>> really been _tested_ on 64-bit and big-endian platforms. Has it?
>
> No. The only BE machine in my reach is a friend's rusty PARISC box which
> we keep around for nostalgic reasons.
> I can provide you access to an Alpha or SGI system running OpenBSD if
you wish.
