> In reply to your message of August 29, 2003 > > >> Peter, longint is simply wrong. > > > Is it? > > Yeah totally wrong... A negative handle??? Think about it...
Yes I think about it. Typed negative on this side (the pascal side). On 2-complements it is the same binary layout, only the interpretation is different. The win32 API sees no difference, since it puts its own typing over it. So signed<->unsigned isn't really a problem as long as you don't move between types with various sizes. Wrong sizes are a problem, but .... > > Moreover, I agree with Peter, HWND's are used really a lot. Inside FPC, > > ICS, Lazarus etc etc. > > Yep, well here's the rub... I took an older system I have laying about and set > it up witn win98 and ran my project... it doesn't do it there! According to > the SDK that's because 9x versions don't assign handles above 65,535 ... i.e. > only the low word of the 32 bit handle is used, which won't cause a range > check error. I've played with Active Directory, services and some other win2000 feats, in total 2 years, and have been porting ICS (1 or 2 MB TCP/IP code, multithreading, heavily messaging) for two weeks now on XP. However that was mostly with 1.1. > > It would have been detected. > > Not if... > A) nobody is using direct winapi calls on nt/2k/xp or > B) nobody bothered to report it. > > One has to ask how many people tried this, ran into trouble and just moved on > to some other compiler without ever bothering to report it... > > Matt is right... Longint is absolutely the wrong declaration for a window > handle. Unless you do arithmetic with it, it shouldn't matter. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
