Am Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:12:25 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org>:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:35:30PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 26/04/2022 ?? 14:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
> > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > >>>I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a
> > >>>'must'.
> > >
> > >There is subtlety here, which might be the source of confusion. The
> > >standard does
> > >not tell you long long needs to be *implemented* by 64bits. It just tells
> > >you to
> > >contain the range of 2^64. So standard does not prohibit you to write
> > >compiler which
> > >uses 65 bits for long long.
> >
> > And if I understand correctly, C++11 tells you that 'long long' has to
> > exist, which was not the case before if I am not mistaken.
>
> Yes, 1998 version of C++ Standard does not know long long, while C++11
> knows it and introduces <climits> with LLONG_MAX, but leaving the definition
> on Standard C library header <limits.h>.
>
> Pavel
I was about to propose
#ifndef UNINT64_MAX
// Make sure the type unit64_t exists
#include <stdint.h>
#endif
but QVariant does not know about uint64, only 'qulonglong type'.
So in the end using 'long long' is the way.
(The problem shows at GuiProgressView.cpp:113
item->setData(0, Qt::UserRole, dit->first);
where we would have to use qulonglong(dit->first)
)
Kornel
--
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
pgpfs3YCuBFPv.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
