Actually, I'm working on mkPackage, not mkProject :)
On Sep 1, 2010 4:26 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> 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
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
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
k [olafvds...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: Elizabeth M Smith; William A. Rowe Jr.; coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Engine APIs required by Bootstrap
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Garrett Serack wrote:
> Ola
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
__
h M Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:19 AM
To: William A. Rowe Jr.
Cc: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: 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 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
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/_
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
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:
rrett Serack
Cc: Philip Allison; coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: 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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
///
/// Callback prototype for the resolve call.
/// CoApp-engine should call this for each package that needs to be
installed
/// And should call this in the order that it discovers packages, with
the assumtion
/// that the last package specified is the first packages to
18 matches
Mail list logo
