2 Mar 2007 23:23
Re: ROX-Filer 2.6
Kacper Wysocki <kacperw <at> online.no>
2007-03-02 22:23:51 GMT
2007-03-02 22:23:51 GMT
On 2/27/07, Tony Houghton <h <at> realh.co.uk> wrote: > In <367a23780702271212i9ca4d78ua348c666578db125 <at> mail.gmail.com>, Kacper Wysocki wrote: > What's really confusing is that some X types with 32 in the name (eg > CARD32 IIRC) are 64-bit on 64-bit architectures. I think it must be > because the API defines them as explicitly being the same as long int. Oh wow, that's bloody terrible! Sounds like a bug in the X types if you ask me... then again, there's all kind of surprising weirdness with the x64 extensions. After a full week of wrapping types and dealing with really obscure bitwidth and alginment bugs, I really wish more code used 'u32' and 's64' types - simple, short, and you always know what the intended type really was. > And I don't really want to know how this works when running an X server > and client on two different architectures! AFAIK there has never been any problems running 64bit sparc X clients againt a 32bit Xsever, or the other way around - I believe X was written with that firmly in mind - but I'm not going to presume as much considering I haven't looked at the code at all. Cheers, -Kacper ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV(Continue reading)

RSS Feed