In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:08:02 +0100 Matthias Troyer
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It will not go wrong, but the implementation has to check for
> sizeof(short), etc., before deciding on how to serialize the short (we
> might want to change byte order, ) . On th
On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 10:49 PM, Dave Harris wrote:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:19:23 +0100 Matthias Troyer
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It can cause troubles, since for my portable codes I use int64_t or
int32_t to be portable. In order for the library to wr
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:19:23 +0100 Matthias Troyer
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It can cause troubles, since for my portable codes I use int64_t or
> int32_t to be portable. In order for the library to write numbers in
> binary consistently we should also seria
On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 07:22 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
From: Matthias Troyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imagine I use a platform where long is
64-bit, write it to the archive and then read it again on a platform
where long is 32-bit. This will cause major problems.
Suppose you have a numbe
>From: Matthias Troyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>1.) The first problem are the basic data types used in the archive:
>short, int and long have no defined bit size, and can thus never be used
>for portable serialization.
>Imagine I use a platform where long is
>64-bit, write it to the archive and th
