Neil and Han-Wen,
Thanks so much for the change to 64-bit! I have tried the original test case I
sent to the user list, and it now compiles without error! Also, I tried one of
the parts for the score I'm working on that was similarly breaking, and it
seems to work fine, too.
Below is the tes
2008/9/19 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> They appear if you use -Wall with compiling lilypond. I'm on fedora
> 9, which has a pretty recent gcc though.
That's the default setting though, isn't it? I'm on Ubuntu hardy
x86_64, using gcc 4.2.3; the only warnings I've ever seen are from the
They appear if you use -Wall with compiling lilypond. I'm on fedora
9, which has a pretty recent gcc though.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Neil Puttock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/18 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Neil, could you also fix the warnings that this change generat
2008/9/18 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Neil, could you also fix the warnings that this change generated? You
> should use scm_from_int64, scm_to_int64 for conversions, otherwise
> we'll get truncations in various corner cases.
Sorry Han-Wen, I haven't seen any warnings. Are they from
Neil, could you also fix the warnings that this change generated? You
should use scm_from_int64, scm_to_int64 for conversions, otherwise
we'll get truncations in various corner cases.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:42 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LGTM
>
> please apply.
>
>
>
> http://codereview.
LGTM
please apply.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5058/diff/11/12
File flower/include/flower-proto.hh (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5058/diff/11/12#newcode2
Line 2: fflower-proto.hh -- typenames in flowerlib
ff?
http://codereview.appspot.com/5058
___
2008/9/11 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Go for it!
Revised patch is up.
OK to apply?
Regards,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Go for it!
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/09/09 22:18:07, hanwenn wrote:
>
>> I wonder if we should have a typedef long long, though. Maybe int64
>
> or similar.
>
> Yes, it would be an improvement.
>
> We already have I64 in flower-proto.hh, so it would ju
On 2008/09/09 22:18:07, hanwenn wrote:
I wonder if we should have a typedef long long, though. Maybe int64
or similar.
Yes, it would be an improvement.
We already have I64 in flower-proto.hh, so it would just be a case of
adding a typedef unsigned long long.
http://codereview.appspot.com/50
Reviewers: Neil Puttock,
Message:
LGTM .
I wonder if we should have a typedef long long, though. Maybe int64 or
similar.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5058
Affected files:
M flower/include/rational.hh
M flower/include/std-string.hh
M flower/include/string-conver
10 matches
Mail list logo