On 17.10.12 13:21, Gustaf Neumann wrote:
> With this committed, there are still the typcast changes to
> address,
dear all, i have done one more cleanup round and removed all
warnings when naviserver is compiled with "clang -Wall
-pedantic".
These changes were mostly mixtures between functio
No, sorry, wrong and quick answer. Ibrahim observation stays valid.
Apologies,
Maurizio
-Original Message-
From: Gustaf Neumann [mailto:neum...@wu.ac.at]
Sent: 17 October 2012 15:03
To: naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [naviserver-devel] [AOLSERVER] Naviserver Win-64
Splendid!
I believe in the end all the codebase and community will benefit from this
activity.
Thank you,
Maurizio
-Original Message-
From: Gustaf Neumann [mailto:neum...@wu.ac.at]
Sent: 17 October 2012 13:21
To: Navidevel
Subject: [naviserver-devel] var name changes
Dear all,
i hav
On 17.10.12 14:49, Maurizio Martignano wrote:
> 1.Macros are defined.
> 2. What is not accepted is the starting with multiple format strings, e.g.
> ""%d %d %d %" <- 1st string PRId64 <- 2nd string " %" <--- and so on
can you rephrase this. What do you mean with "starting with
multiple format stri
Is this maybe version dependent? to be on the safe side, i
added PRIu64 in case it is not defined
-g
On 17.10.12 14:25, Ibrahim Tannir wrote:
> Hi Gustaf,
>
> Quickly grepped all include files. No PRI* defined anywhere.
> Maurizio must have missed this one.
>
> Cheers,
> Ibrahim
>
> On 17-Oct-12 1
1.Macros are defined.
2. What is not accepted is the starting with multiple format strings, e.g.
""%d %d %d %" <- 1st string PRId64 <- 2nd string " %" <--- and so on
-Original Message-
From: Gustaf Neumann [mailto:neum...@wu.ac.at]
Sent: 17 October 2012 14:06
To: naviserver-devel@lists
Hi Gustaf,
Quickly grepped all include files. No PRI* defined anywhere.
Maurizio must have missed this one.
Cheers,
Ibrahim
On 17-Oct-12 14:05, Gustaf Neumann wrote:
> On 17.10.12 12:35, Maurizio Martignano wrote:
> From your changes, i deduce, that PRId64 and PRIuMAX are
> not defined for y
On 17.10.12 12:35, Maurizio Martignano wrote:
>
> +#ifdef _WIN64
> +Ns_DStringPrintf(dsPtr, "%d %d %d %l64d %l64d %l64d
> %l64d",
> +#else
>Ns_DStringPrintf(dsPtr, "%d %d %d %" PRId64 " %"
> PRId64 " %" PRId64 " %" PRId64,
> +#endif
>
>
> question arise: is this just _WIN64 or a
Dear all,
i have just commited a change addression all var name
changes that maurizio brought up.
The most common use-case of the variable "new" is of the form
Tcl_CreateHashEntry(&table, value, &new);
The tcl source code uses new typically "isNew" instead of
new, so we loose nothing
on re
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Maurizio Martignano
wrote:
> OK
>
> Simple reason: Visual Studio complains about that stuff and it is annoying.
Looks like Visual Studio 2012 comes with a C compiler:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb384838.aspx
"Visual Studio includes a C compiler th
Dear Gustav,
Thank you for your mail message.
My answer here below.
Maurizio
-Original Message-
From: Gustaf Neumann [mailto:neum...@wu.ac.at]
Sent: 17 October 2012 11:47
To: naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [naviserver-devel] [AOLSERVER] Naviserver Win-64 So
Maurizio,
the changes you have done are textually quite large, the
patch is 6000 lines +.
Please, don't expect, we can apply this and forget about it,
we need some time
to digest this. Please, don't be impatient, we all have
limited time.
For some problems, it seems for me to be better to foll
Maurizio Martignano wrote:
> OK
>
> Simple reason: Visual Studio complains about that stuff and it is annoying.
> I changed that everywhere. It doesn't do any arm, and for you it is free.
> Why you just do not accept it?
If the problem is that VS is emitting a meaningless warning, I would
first c
OK
Simple reason: Visual Studio complains about that stuff and it is annoying.
I changed that everywhere. It doesn't do any arm, and for you it is free.
Why you just do not accept it?
And the same goes for the keywords "new" and "delete". On the contrary the
keyword "bool" as I already mentioned
On 17.10.2012, at 07:25, Jeff Rogers wrote:
> (could
> users just use a complete tclx, or would that interact badly with signal
> handling or other bits?)
It would.
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make you
15 matches
Mail list logo
