Re: [gtk-list] Re: How to use a gpointer?

[Ulric Eriksson <ulric edu stockholm se>]

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Lars Hallberg wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 06:09:29AM +0100, Ulric Eriksson wrote:
> > 
> > Frankly, I don't see any point in "typedef int gint" if the intention is
> > to create a general-purpose integer type with exactly the same properties
> > as the already existing general-purpose integer type. The same goes for
> > "typedef long glong" et al. The definitions in glibconfig.h make a little
> > more sense.
> 
> Well, if someone someday find a system wher ints are 64bit and void * are
> 32 bit ther is a posability to make gint = gint32 for these systems...

Yes, and if we do that today: presto, an integer type that fits in any
32-bit pointer, at least as long as the pointer format isn't too funky.
I.e, an integer type *not* with exactly the same properties as a plain
int.

> To my understanding glib - gtk - gnome is used cross-plattform and working.
> The first hacker around to try a nonworking platform must fix this som way,
> until then no-one probably want to put in hypotetical testes. That may be
> wrong in theory but is good in practis (as hypotetical testes newer get
> tested and therfor easely be buggy).

The point is: we do *not* have to hack around "nonworking platforms". For
each and every C implementation, there is documentation that tells us how
things like these are handled.

The C programming language isn't defined by existing implementations, and
hasn't been for a decade. That is one of the reasons Glib is written in C.

> Can't it just be with this (before we got a flamewar ;-)?

Sure, but I don't see it as a flamewar. If this were comp.lang.c, then
there would be a flamewar. But this is gtk-list, and we're all sane here.

Ulric