Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On 9/1/2010 12:19 PM, Elizabeth M Smith wrote: > > Why not just use the native windows API file functions instead of the C > runtime versions - > this is definitely a windows only product and the C runtime versions are > wrappers - what > are we gaining? Agreed. So for the record, large file p

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Garrett Serack wrote: > Well, like my life... things are happening in a slightly different order. Ah, we're supporting out-of-order execution. :p > Eric Schultz is rockin' away on mkProject, which looks like we're not too far > away from having in a state that we

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

Well, like my life... things are happening in a slightly different order. Eric Schultz is rockin' away on mkProject, which looks like we're not too far away from having in a state that we can make some test packages. G From: Olaf van der Spek [olafvds...@

Re: [Coapp-developers] Remember, we're always on IRC...

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Garrett Serack wrote: > Just a reminder to those who lurk, a bunch of us are often on IRC on > irc.freenode.net (#coapp). > > irc://irc.freenode.net/coapp ;) Olaf ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Garrett Serack wrote: > Olaf's doin' his job by making sure we mean what we say. :D ... Thanks Olaf! You're welcome! BTW, how's mkProject coming along? I remember back in April you said the first packages (like libz) would take a few weeks. ;) Olaf __

[Coapp-developers] Remember, we're always on IRC...

Just a reminder to those who lurk, a bunch of us are often on IRC on irc.freenode.net (#coapp). A lot of conversation happens there. You can even join us without installing an IRC client by using the web chat client at http://webchat.frenode.net G [Description: fearthecowboy]

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

I think this is all in reference to the fn prototypes that I posted for the engine::bootstrap interface (I used __int64 for file size byte counts). I wasn't thinking specifically about underlying implementation when I wrote that, I was actually thinking that 32 bits wouldn't cut it, and 64 seeme

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On 9/1/2010 1:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 9/1/2010 11:58 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Garrett Serack wrote: knowing that 64bits is plenty enough for file sizes, I think we should standardize on __int64 where we can. __int64 is reasonable, although lo

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On 9/1/2010 11:58 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Garrett Serack wrote: >> knowing that 64bits is plenty enough for file sizes, I think we should >> standardize on __int64 where we can. > > __int64 is reasonable, although long long is standard. Not per _ftelli64/_

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On 9/1/2010 11:34 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Garrett Serack wrote: >> Well, Windows APIs use LONG which is a typedef to long .. (clever, eh?) >> The CRT uses long for things like fseek. >> off_t is another typedef to long >> I suppose I should have said long ins

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Garrett Serack wrote: > knowing that 64bits is plenty enough for file sizes, I think we should > standardize on __int64 where we can. __int64 is reasonable, although long long is standard. Olaf ___ Mailing list: https:

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

arg. This is what I get for not drinking coffee in the morning... that, and I've been spending too much my time in c#, where long is 64 bits. Most of the APIs do use (a variant of) long all over the place, which is indeed 32 bits. I was thinking of things like SetFilePointerEx which takes a L

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Garrett Serack wrote: > Well, Windows APIs use LONG which is a typedef to long .. (clever, eh?) > The CRT uses long for things like fseek. > off_t is another typedef to long > I suppose I should have said long instead of __int64 -- but I have a soft > spot for being

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

LONGLONG is merely __int64 in hiding. Careful though, it's __int64 on all platforms, i.e. x86, x64, IA64. /rafael On 9/1/2010 12:17 PM, Elizabeth M Smith wrote: > On 9/1/2010 12:16 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Philip Allison >> wrote: >>> Is __int64 the most

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Elizabeth M Smith wrote: > Um... there is no long long on windows Says who? We're not using VC6 are we? Olaf ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net U

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On 9/1/2010 12:16 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Philip Allison wrote: Is __int64 the most preferred type for large file support? Having had to I'd use long long. Olaf ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Philip Allison wrote: > Is __int64 the most preferred type for large file support?  Having had to I'd use long long. Olaf ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.la

Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap

Is __int64 the most preferred type for large file support? Having had to fix programs with large file issues in the past (and not always succeeding, thanks to broken libraries), I've grown pedantic about the usage of correct types. AFAIK, the preferred methodology for POSIX platforms is to use of