ngotogenome / gmail.com wrote: > I think it is possbile that the first 8 byte (in 64-bit architecture) > of "struct rb_iseq_struct" is sometimes used for some other purposes > (maybe VALUE ?), and on big-endian 64-bit architecture (including > SPARC64), it is frequently misunderstood as the other type. That sounds strange. I'll wait for ko1 to comment. I tried valgrind, but that did not report errors on x86-64 when I tried "make newline.c". tool/transcode-tblgen.rb ran without errors. > By the way, I think "int stack_max" is better than "uint32_t > stack_max" because it seems that all calculations of stack_max in > compile.c(iseq_set_sequence) and vm_insnhelper.c(vm_push_frame) are > conducted using int. I agree, that may be changed to int. Since enum is also signed int type, maybe having 32-bit signed and unsigned types next to each other is confusing the compiler? Can you try "int stack_max"? Thanks.