On 05/01/10 20:30, Matt Wozniski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Sergey Khorev wrote:
Well,
Isn't that only checking the type of CPU that the vim binary was built
with, instead of whether it was built as an x64 binary? Or does
defining WIN64 cause an x64 binary to be built instead?
CPU in makefile defines target CPU.
-DWIN64 passed to compiler does nothing besides pointing out to source
code we are targeting x64 or IA64.
OK, then.
I'm not sure what has("win64") should be returning based only on
reading the help, but I'd imagine it should either be a) whether the
vim binary itself is a 64 bit binary, or b) whether the OS that the
binary is running on is a 64-bit version of windows. The latter seems
more useful, but I'm not sure just from the help. If I'm right,
though, it would have to be a runtime test; nothing at compile time
could do the trick.
Source code clearly states it was meant as a compile-time check:
#ifdef WIN64
"win64",
#endif
Honestly, I'm not sure what's the point in knowledge what OS version
we are running.
I can conceive of a plugin that dynamically loads a DLL - or another
program - that requires a 64-bit windows, which would need to know
that the host OS supports it. In this case, you'd want to know that
the OS is 64 bit, even if the vim binary is 32-bit. But as I said, I
can see the argument either way. It should obviously be consistent
with whatever win16 and win32 do, so if they're compile-time
architecture checks, all is fine.
~Matt
There is more: in Vim versions built before the +foobar feature was
defined, has('foobar') returns zero by design. This means that a has()
feature which would return 1 for "this is a 32-bit version of Vim
running on a 64-bit OS" would necessarily be unreliable.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand.
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
