On 12/ 2/16 12:00 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
I'd favor uintptr_t to keep better compatibility with current elfutils.
That's not perfect either, since glibc uses "unsigned int" on 32-bit
platforms, so that could still cause warnings for things that strictly
expect long, like printf "%lx". But directl
On 12/ 2/16 02:42 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
Someone was porting elfutils libelf to Windows64 and noticed that the
return types of gelf_newehdr and gelf_newphdr (unsigned long int) is not
appropriate on that platform. It uses the LLP64 data model where int and
long are both 32bits, while point
On 12/02/2016 01:42 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Someone was porting elfutils libelf to Windows64 and noticed that the
> return types of gelf_newehdr and gelf_newphdr (unsigned long int) is not
> appropriate on that platform. It uses the LLP64 data model where int and
> long are both 32bits,
Hi,
Someone was porting elfutils libelf to Windows64 and noticed that the
return types of gelf_newehdr and gelf_newphdr (unsigned long int) is not
appropriate on that platform. It uses the LLP64 data model where int and
long are both 32bits, while pointers are 64bits. Instead of the more
common LP
