Mon Jul 12 12:03:38 2010: Request 55660 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by k...@volny.cz
Queue: Win32-API
Subject: RE: [rt.cpan.org #55660] [PATCH] Partial win64 support for
Win32::API
Broken in: (no value)
Severity: (no value)
Owner: COSIMO
Requestors: sbenn...@accelrys.com
Status: open
Ticket <URL: http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=55660 >
> However, I'd suggest they can probably just use
> the _P name as DWORD_PTR does -- MSDN lists them
> all as being equivalent either to a HANDLE (hence
> PVOID) or a *_PTR type (hence pointer sized)[1]. The
> argument in favour of having separate _P and _L size
> markers would be future-proofing, but experience
> suggests there's absolutely no telling what the Win32 API
> will look like for any possible future architecture, so I'd
> rather handle the current possibilities in the simplest
> manner possible.
OK, I agree.
--
kmx
So yes, they're not technically pointers but are all defined as being the same
size as a pointer.
[1]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383751(VS.85).aspx
Accelrys Limited (http://accelrys.com)
Registered office: 334 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 0WN, UK
Registered in England: 2326316
