Brice Goglin, le Tue 13 Mar 2012 17:10:45 +0100, a écrit : > Le 13/03/2012 17:04, Hartmut Kaiser a écrit : > >>> But the problems I was seeing were not MSVC specific. It's a > >>> proliferation of arcane (non-POSIX) function use (like strcasecmp, > >>> etc.) missing use of HAVE_UNISTD_H, HAVE_STRINGS_H to wrap > >>> non-standard headers, unsafe mixing of > >>> int32<->int64 data types, reliance on int (and other types) having a > >>> certain bit-size, totally unsafe shift operations, wide use of > >>> (non-C-standard) gcc extensions, etc. Should I go on? > > More investigation shows that the code currently assumes group (and > > processor) masks to be 32 bit, which is not true on 64 bit systems. > > No. What it assumes is that you have a sane compiler where ulong is not > 32bits on 64bits systems :)
Nothing says that an ulong is 64bit on a 64bit system. Only intptr_t can be assumed to be 64bit. That's why we have HWLOC_BITS_PER_LONG actually. In my memory I took care in the windows case that longs are 32bit, and used DWORD for ulong. But since I had no test machine, I couldn't promise it was working :) Samuel
