Subject: Re: Ispell hashes
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Tue Jun 26 2001 - 11:03:54 CDT
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> >
> > Anyway I think that it is necessary to make clear and public what hash
> > configuration is going to be used. So anybody can build a correct
> > dictionary.
> > I would like to send a galician dictionary that I have made. To build it
> > using the current configuration (8bit/26flags/100characters) I need to
> > make
> > some not minor changes to it, because it uses more that 26 flags. I also
> > need
> > to compile ispell myself, as the binary versions that I can get make
> > dictionaries with 8bits/52flags/128characters. I wonder if there are a
> > lot of
> > distributions that supply binary ispell versions compiled with
> > 8bits/26flags/100characters
>
> Ok, this looks trivial for me to do. If I define MAXSTRINGCHARS to 128, we'll
> fix 1 problem. We already use 8 bits, so that's solved. Now, if I let the
> flag-width be 64 and uncomment a bunch of stuff in ispell.h, things should work,
> yes?
>
> So what I need from the non-unix people here:
>
> Does 'long long' work on your system? Perhaps I'll create a UT_sint64 and
> UT_uint64 integer data-type which will be properly defined on people's platforms.
>
Dom and Ramon,
Please feel free to work on this. From my point of view I
have enough work to do fixing crashers and Styles to keep me busy for next
few days.
I think UT_uint64 is a good idea. I get compiler warnings on "long
long" and we want to be able to run on 64 bit architectures too, right?
Cheers
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Jun 26 2001 - 11:04:32 CDT