Hi Chris, On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 07:47:05PM -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 12:52:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > See the attached message. :)
> > Please don't cast GType into guint; it breaks the API and fails on Alpha > > (at least). If you look at http://bugs.debian.org/406378, there is a > > patch at the end of the bug log which Steve Langasek says fixes the > > current problems. Can someone please check that into gnucash for the > > next release? > I'll take care of it. Thanks :) > > And, please, don't cast GType into guint. > > Also, Steve is serious in asking "where did they get the idea this was > > ok"; apparently there are *lots* of gtk+ programs which are doing this, > > and so he really would like to find what documentation or whatever is > > confusing and leading people to make this mistake so often in so many > > different programs. > It's historical. g_type_register_static() was advertized as a > replacement for gtk_type_unique() which returned GtkType, which was a > guint. See: > http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/gtk/gtk-types.html#GTKTYPE > When we switched from GtkType to GType, we missed the fact that GType > wasn't also a guint. Thanks, that confirms what I was told by another Debian maintainer. It's unfortunate that none of the GTK documentation explains the difference between GtkType and GType as pertains to 64-bit architectures. (It's also unfortunate that the ia64 and amd64 Linux ports adopted a heap address below 2^32, leaving alpha as the only canary in the mine, but I digress. :) I wonder if it's worth asking the GTK folks to change the signature from unsigned long to void* at this point... Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
