On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Jon Trulson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Frederic Koehler wrote:
>
>> As far as I can tell, tooltalk makes no effort to be binary compatible
>> between different platforms already; e.g. in the patch I recently
>> submitted,
>> that code sends part of a message of
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Frederic Koehler wrote:
> As far as I can tell, tooltalk makes no effort to be binary compatible
> between different platforms already; e.g. in the patch I recently
> submitted,
> that code sends part of a message of size uid_t which is not the same
> between different platfor
As far as I can tell, tooltalk makes no effort to be binary compatible
between different platforms already; e.g. in the patch I recently
submitted,
that code sends part of a message of size uid_t which is not the same
between different platforms. (although rpc itself should be platform
independent)
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> Marc Balmer writes:
>
>> A possible solution could be to use long instead of int, as sizeof(long)
>> == sizeof(void *) on 32bit and 64bit linux. But if such values are used
>> in externalized binary form somewhere (tooltalk?) it might lead to
>> incompa
Am 12.08.12 18:44, schrieb Aaron W. Hsu:
> Marc Balmer writes:
>
>> A possible solution could be to use long instead of int, as sizeof(long)
>> == sizeof(void *) on 32bit and 64bit linux. But if such values are used
>> in externalized binary form somewhere (tooltalk?) it might lead to
>> incompa
Marc Balmer writes:
>A possible solution could be to use long instead of int, as sizeof(long)
>== sizeof(void *) on 32bit and 64bit linux. But if such values are used
>in externalized binary form somewhere (tooltalk?) it might lead to
>incompatabilities.
This is not really future portable, and
