Re: XEmacs at a crossroads

 Ar an deichiú lá de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Henry S. Thompson: 

 > ht writes:
 > 
 > > Great, thank you!  [disabling ASLR] moves me on a step, definitely.
 > > More details later in the week, I hope.
 > 
 > I can now compile and run an x86_64 xemacs using Visual Studio 2015.
 > 
 > _But_, there are over 2192 warnings (1880 _distinct_) about possible
 > data loss stemming from differences in size.  Most of these arise from
 > the disconnect between the sizes of int, long, and EMACS_INT/VOID_P/and
 > friends:
 > 
 >                                 int long EMACS_INT
 >  Cygwin/gcc     64-bit:          4   8      8
 >  Windows/VS2015 64-bit:          4   4      8
 > 
 > It seems . . . unlikely that _all_ of these warnings are harmless, so
 > short of slowly working through all of the cases I don't see that it's
 > plausible to make a release described as fully 64-bit-compatible.

It’s not *that* unlikely, XEmacs is pretty 64-bit-clean. Grepping through
the source, the big thing I can see is Hashcode being long; does that
improve things much? Could you post your error log somewhere?

 > Sigh.
 > 
 > Not sure about mingw, i.e. what ? is in a further row to the above
 > table:
 > 
 >  Windows/x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc  4   ?      8
 > 
 > Anybody besides me care about this?

I use XEmacs on an Win64 machine regularly and am frustrated that the only
recent binary is not recent at all, if that helps.

-- 
‘Tramadol is further fed to cattle […] when working them […] (as draft
animals) so that the animals do not get tired quickly. …’
	— Angewandte Chemie, Sept 2014, describing the social context of
	(synthetic) tramadol having been found in Cameroon tree roots.

_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta