Re: [ft-devel] a couple of warnings from 2.5.4 with mingw/darwinx

[suzuki toshiya]

I tried with Fedora's cross compiler (for darwinx),
and could not reproduce the error. Which toolchain
I should try in next?

Regards,
mpsuzuki

suzuki toshiya wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Yet I could not reproduce the problem on my Mac OS X,
> I think I should try on the cross building system.
> However, I'm unfamiliar with the defacto standard of
> the cross compiler for DarwinX on other platform.
> 
> Considering that you also mentioned "for mingw", I guess
> you're working on some unix like platform. Your cross
> compiler for DarwinX is built by yourself? Or you
> installed some prebuilt packages? The prebuilt package
> I could find was only for Fedora:
> http://build1.vanpienbroek.nl/fedora-cross-darwinx/fedora-cross-darwinx.repo
> 
> Please let me know more detail about your platform working for DarwinX.
> 
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki
> Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>> I have got to the bottom of the latter issue; I mentioned that I was 
>> cross-compiling,
>> for apple, right? It really needs the --enable-biarch-config switch:
>>
>> without --enable-biarch-config:
>>
>> checking size of long... 8
>> checking whether cpp computation of bit length in ftconfig.in works... no
>>
>> with --enable-biarch-config:
>>
>> checking size of long... 8
>> checking whether cpp computation of bit length in ftconfig.in works... 
>> broken but use it
>>
>> I don't know where it gets the size of long from. The apple compiler
>> front end is quite interesting in that it drives the individual architectures
>> and put all three (or 4) outputs from 32-bit powerpc, 32-bit intel, 64-bit 
>> intel into 1 "object" files.
>> And the warnings come from the "under the hood" compile of the 32-bit 
>> outputs.
>>
>> The 32-bit powerpc and 32-bit intel arch have size of long = 4. If I use
>> the individual single architecture front end, then it shows "4" and "yes" 
>> respectively.
>>
>> I am wondering whether --enable-biarch-config should be better documented,
>> and/or made the default for Mac OS X? (though it probably make less sense 
>> now since
>> apple has moved to 64-bit intel somewhat exclusively lately)
>>
>> Also, can it not use stdint.h and int64_t directly? "long" is rather vague 
>> :-).
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Sat, 17/1/15, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>>  
>>  Hello
>>  Hin-Tak!
>>  
>>  
>>  >
>>  /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/harfbuzz/hb-common.h:309:26:
>>  > warning: ISO C restricts enumerator values
>>  to range of 'int'
>>  >
>>  [-Wpedantic]
>>  >   
>>  _HB_SCRIPT_MAX_VALUE    = HB_TAG_MAX, /*< skip
>>  >*/
>>  >                     
>>       ^
>>  
>>  This is
>>  a known but harmless issue, and work-arounds seem to be
>>  very
>>  inelegant, IIRC.
>>  
>>  >
>>  /root/rpmbuild/BUILD/freetype-2.5.4/src/base/fttrigon.c:74:
>>  warning:
>>  > right shift count >= width
>>  of type
>>  
>>  This looks
>>  strange.  Here's the corresponding code line:
>>  
>>    val = (FT_Fixed)( (
>>  (FT_Int64)val * FT_TRIG_SCALE + 0x40000000UL ) >> 32
>>  );
>>  
>>  We explicitly convert to
>>  a 64bit entity (`FT_Int64'), and this should
>>  allow a shifting by 32 bits...  So the basic
>>  question is whether
>>  `FT_Int64' is
>>  *indeed* a 64bit type.
>>  
>>  
>>      Werner
>>  
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Freetype-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freetype-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel