On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:45:53AM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 18:03, Hans Breuer wrote:
> > Compiling The Gimp reveals that the recently added GPid (== void*)
> > may be not such a good idea :
> >
> > D:\devel\my-gtk\gimp\app>nmake -nologo -f makefile.msc sub-one
THIS=plug-in
> > cd plug-in
> > nmake -nologo -f makefile.msc
> > cl -G5 -Zi -MD -W3 -nologo
> > -FImsvc_recommended_pragmas.h -I..\.. -I..\../app -I..\..\..\glib
> > -I..\..\..\glib\glib -I..\..\..\glib\gmodule
-I..\..\..\other\intl-tml -I
> > ..\..\../atk -I..\..\../gtk+\gdk -I..\..\../gtk+ -I..\..\..\pango
> > -I..\..\../atk -GD -c plug-in.c
> > plug-in.c
> > plug-in.c(450) : error C4047: 'function' : 'void ** ' differs in
levels of
> > indirection from 'int *'
> > plug-in.c(450) : warning C4022: 'g_spawn_async' : pointer mismatch for
> > actual parameter 7
> >
> > How do we fix this ?
> > Changing it back to "typedef GPid int" in glibconfig.h ?
>
> Ugh. I was hoping this would be a "harmless" warning in MSVC as it is
> for GCC.
> The question to me isn't really "is this API breakage?" (on Windows,
> with MSVC) but rather "do we care that it is API breakage?". And I'm
> not sure I'm in a good position to answer that.
>
> But if it was up to me, I'd say that we should keep the API breakage
> rather than keeping the broken API.
The tradeoff is keeping code compiling for the Win32 people without
modification vs. letting people know early on that their code will
break in Win64. The API stays as is either way, it's a question of being
lenient with people not following the API or not.
I'll fix the GIMP up regardless.