On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:41 +0200, "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <[email protected]>
btw, wouldn't "%p" be the correct way to print a pointer? or are there
some compat issues with that (e.g. non-POSIX)
All I know is that the rest of the Pd code uses .x%lx.
At the dev meeting in Graz in 2004, I was asked for a portable replacement
for .x%lx, and I spontaneously said %p, but it turned out to be wrong,
because on Linux/OSX, it doesn't print it exactly as .x%lx in 32-bit mode,
because it prepends "0x"... and then I later realised that on Windows, it
does something even more different.
In any case, any change from ".x%lx" to something else will cause a
problem of backwards-compat AND forwards-compat across versions of Pd,
which will need not only a recompilation but also a global
search-and-replace (one that can't be done by sed). This is because
sys_vgui is too low level, causing its users to need to copy-paste ".x%lx"
all over the place.
This is why the Win64 pointer bug can't be fixed.
_______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
