On 15/01/2008, Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14/01/2008 21:43, George V. Reilly wrote: > > On 14/01/2008, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Mike Williams wrote: > >> > >>> Catching up from the weekend patches I had two warnings for my builds. > >>> The attached patch fixes them - done against 7.1.228 > >> Thanks. > >> > >> I'm wondering if LONGLONG is always defined when WIN3264 is defined. We > >> don't use LONGLONG yet anywhere. > > > > LONGLONG should be defined in all recent versions of the compiler and > > SDK. Always as a 64-bit signed quantity. Recent = last six years or > > so. > > MS document the LARGE_INTEGER structure as being around since Win95, so > I'd hope LONGLONG has been good for that long (excuse the pun) to.
LARGE_INTEGER is a struct containing two 32-bit quantities. LONGLONG is an integral type requiring compiler support for 64-bit ints. I believe it was introduced as part of the initial Win64 work, which happened internally at MS around 1999 or 2000. Anyway, I'm sure that it's supported in VS.NET (2002) and it's probably supported in VS98 if you update the SDK. Possibly even without. I have a set of virtual machine images at home with all the Microsoft compilers from VS98 onwards, precisely for building Vim. I'm growing less and less sympathetic to those who want to build Vim with old compilers, however. Between the Visual C++ 2003 Toolkit, Visual Studio 2005 Express, and Visual Studio 2008 Express, there are three free compilers from Microsoft. If you really want to build your own copy of Vim, the least you should be prepared to do is download a recent copy of the Microsoft, cygwin, or MinGW compilers. -- /George V. Reilly http://www.georgevreilly.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
