Mon Jul 12 11:52:56 2010: Request 55660 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by sbenn...@accelrys.com
Queue: Win32-API
Subject: RE: [rt.cpan.org #55660] [PATCH] Partial win64 support for
Win32::API
Broken in: (no value)
Severity: (no value)
Owner: COSIMO
Requestors: sbenn...@accelrys.com
Status: open
Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=55660 >
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about those.
However, I'd suggest they can probably just use the _P name as DWORD_PTR does
-- MSDN lists them all as being equivalent either to a HANDLE (hence PVOID) or
a *_PTR type (hence pointer sized)[1]. The argument in favour of having
separate _P and _L size markers would be future-proofing, but experience
suggests there's absolutely no telling what the Win32 API will look like for
any possible future architecture, so I'd rather handle the current
possibilities in the simplest manner possible.
So yes, they're not technically pointers but are all defined as being the same
size as a pointer.
[1]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383751(VS.85).aspx
Accelrys Limited (http://accelrys.com)
Registered office: 334 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 0WN, UK
Registered in England: 2326316
