Sorry for lated response about this.
My analysis is following;
a) in recent version of FreeType2 uses 64-bit variant for
optimized numerical calculation, EVEN IF YOU DON'T ENABLE
FT_CONFIG_OPTION_FORCE_INT64 in ftoption.h.
b) at present, for GCC environment, the optimized numerical
functions
Toshiya-san,
thanks for your analysis.
a) on i386, x86_64 and arm where the optimized numerical functions
are enabled by default, FT_CONFIG_OPTION_FORCE_INT64 should be
enabled, for the developers' visibility.
OK.
b-1) for LP64 systems, [use] the type long instead of long long for
Dear Werner,
Sorry for my poor English.
On 03/02/2014 01:57 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
thanks for your analysis.
a) on i386, x86_64 and arm where the optimized numerical functions
are enabled by default, FT_CONFIG_OPTION_FORCE_INT64 should be
enabled, for the developers' visibility.
Current pragma design is
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored -Wlong-long
...
#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
If it is changed to like
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored -Wlong-long
...
#pragma GCC diagnostic warning -Wlong-long
the older gcc without
Hmm. I will try to find any combinations can simulate
-pedantic except of -Wlong-long.
Can't you just use the -std=c99 flag to tell GCC to only be pedantic
about things not in the now-15-year-old C99 standard, instead of
going back to the older C89?
Good idea! I leave it to Toshiya-san
Hi Werner,
There are a few warnings from an old Mac OS X's compiler,
You might want to look into them?
The long long seems to be harmless - but I am somewhat surprised
you have a warning suppression for gcc 4.6(?) near one of these - the compiler
itself reports itself as (GCC) 4.2.1 (Apple Inc.
