Re: tidy binaries

At 4:21 AM -0700 5/23/05, Cory Nelson wrote:

>IMHO, the idea of casting pointers to typedefed integers (let alone a
>fixed 32-bit 'ulong') is ridiculous in the first place.  I can
>understand typedefing int32 and int64 etc but what reasoning was there
>to do this with very platform specific pointers?  I'd be happy to
>attempt a patch, but i'm still not 100% familiar with the Tidy code
>and don't want to break some obscure code that relies on it being an
>int.


Don't blame me <grin>.


Can you point out some of the constructs you have concerns with? - I'm not
sure what pieces of code you are talking about.


>Some fairly complex C++ I have runs in about 1/6th the time on 64-bit,
>so I'm excited to see if Tidy gets similar benefits.


While that may be true for some 64-bit platforms, it is not necessarily
true for plain C code (e.g. Tidy), and for example Mac OS X on PowerPC G5.
Unless you are going to be tidying huge data sets (unlikely), there may in
fact be disadvantages of going to 64-bit - see :

<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/intro/c
hapter_1_section_1.html>


Regards, Terry




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes
Want to be the first software developer in space?
Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click