[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix
From: |
James Cloos |
Subject: |
Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix |
Date: |
Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:22:54 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110016 (No Gnus v0.16) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>>>>> "WL" == Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
WL> So you say this code always works with any compiler, right?
Anything which supports a 64bit integer which ft's typedefs understand.
Ie, anything where FT_Int64 is typedef'ed and where FT_LONG64 is #defined.
WL> We are reaching an area where I'm blissfully ignorant... What patches
WL> do you suggest to fix this issue so that it works with any compiler?
I was hoping to ellicit discussion on that front.
I've verified that replacing #undef FT_CONFIG_OPTION_FORCE_INT64 with #define
in include/freetype/config/ftoption.h does prevent the #undef FT_LONG64.
But that shouldn't be needed on LP64 archs.
Perhaps the #if FT_SIZEOF_LONG == 8 case should also #define
FT_CONFIG_OPTION_FORCE_INT64 ?
-JimC
--
James Cloos <address@hidden> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
- [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/04
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/05
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/05
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Behdad Esfahbod, 2011/04/05
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/05
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Алексей Подтележников, 2011/04/07
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/07
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/07
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/08
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix,
James Cloos <=
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/18
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/18