To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=77438
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 12 15:55:34 +0000 2007 ------- Hi! I'm Rudolf Ferenc, the guy from the University of Szeged. Let me explain the origin of the patches. We analyzed a lot of already fixed bugs in the OOo source code and found that at some point in time you started to build OOo on 64bit processors too. This probably introduced lots of problems, because the size of 'long' changed from 32 to 64 bits. You used the 'long' type in many places and when these variables got e.g. initialized, you used the form 'long lv = 0L;'. To overcome the 32 vs. 64 bit issue you introduced the sal_Int32 type, which means a 32bit value on both 32 and 64 bit machines (it depends on macros, see types.h), and started to replace all occurrences of 'long' with 'sal_Int32', but the e.g. '0L' integer literals remained there in many places. This can cause compilation problems with 64 bit compilers (see e.g. http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57396). The compiler complained that it cannot find the called function, because it expects sal_Int32 parameters, but the function argument was of 'long' type). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
