Re: three for newlib

On 12/16/21 3:53 AM, Craig Small wrote:
> Those three patches are pushed. Was the reason for the number of 
> processors change just to make it like the other fields? I cannot see 
> anything having -42 processors but you're right a max signed int is 
> enough processors, even for the strange machines Werner supports.

Hi Craig,

It was just to make that huge top switch statement a little less wordy 
and the ps format string more accurate.  It was prompted by adapting one 
of my experimental master branches to a newlib version wherein that 
switch statement was eliminated in favor of a table driven approach.

> I'll have to go and reset my configure options, but I did see a warning 
> in one of the library files when I was fiddling around either trying to 
> fix the free alignment issue or the watch "mega colours" issue a week ago.

I don't understand the above.

Regards,

Jim