On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 10:05 +0200, Tim Janik wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Murray Cumming wrote:
>>> For instance, glibmm's library contains a >>> void get_defs(unsigned long) >>> But now, when building gtkmm, the linker is looking for >>> void get_defs(unsigned int) >>> and failing. >> >> hm, just to clarify explicitely, actual C ABI wasn't broken by >> this change. > > I think that's debatable. I'd prefer to be careful than have to argue > over every possible thing this could break. > >> i guess we can workaround the C++ linking issues >> by reintroducing >> typedef gulong GType; >> if GLIB_SIZEOF_LONG == GLIB_SIZEOF_SIZE_T && defined __cplusplus. >> that'll just leave C++ with bogus warnings about %zu again. > > I really don't like the idea of a typedef having one definition for C > and another for C++. well, we've always had two definitions there (using long, allthough the effective GType width was always made sure to match GLIB_SIZEOF_SIZE_T). > It seems destined to break something sometime in > strange and obscure ways. aparently, at least for C++ (which of course wasn't intended by the change). > What does %zu do? What bug does this solve? printf-ing a GType. so far, the "correct" way to print it would have been to use %lu if GLIB_SIZEOF_LONG == GLIB_SIZEOF_SIZE_T, and %zu (prints size_t) otherwise, allthough sizeof (GType) is guaranteed to always match sizeof (size_t) (not neccessarily sizeof (long)). > -- > Murray Cumming --- ciaoTJ _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
