Re: [rox-users] ROX-Filer 2.6

[Kacper W. <ka...@on...>]

On 2/27/07, Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote:
> In <367...@ma...>, Kacper Wysocki wrote:
> What's really confusing is that some X types with 32 in the name (eg
> CARD32 IIRC) are 64-bit on 64-bit architectures. I think it must be
> because the API defines them as explicitly being the same as long int.

Oh wow, that's bloody terrible! Sounds like a bug in the X types if
you ask me... then again, there's all kind of surprising weirdness
with the x64 extensions. After a full week of wrapping types and
dealing with really obscure bitwidth and alginment bugs, I really wish
more code used 'u32' and 's64' types - simple, short, and you always
know what the intended type really was.

> And I don't really want to know how this works when running an X server
> and client on two different architectures!

AFAIK there has never been any problems running 64bit sparc X clients
againt a 32bit Xsever, or the other way around - I believe X was
written with that firmly in mind - but I'm not going to presume as
much considering I haven't looked at the code at all.

Cheers,
 -Kacper