[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Removed dependencies on tools/solar.h

[Soeren Moeller]

Thank you for your replies, for the future I will use bool when
substituting BOOL outside of the UNO API.

With respect to ULONG, I, as Norbert correctly observed, used
sal_uIntPtr because of the typedef in tools/solar.h, but what should I
use instead? It seems there are the following possibilities:
- unsigned long
- sal_uInt32 (could be too short on 64-bit systems)
- sal_uIntPtr (wrong)
- C99 data types (but which of these, and as Norbert writes this would
require a compat.h for Microsoft compilers, and I have no idea how to
do this (and no Microsoft compiler to test it))

I would like to do similar removements of dependencies on tools/ in
other files in sc/inc/ (and the related source files), so
it would be nice to know. which data types I should use instead.

Regards
Sören


2011/1/4 Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Kohei Yoshida <kyoshida at novell.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 21:47 +0100, Soeren Moeller wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I have removed dependencies on tools/solar.h in some files in sc
>>> (according to http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Easy_Hacks#write_tools.2F_pieces_out
>>> ) please review and commit.
>>
>> Thanks, pushed!
>>
>> BTW, we generally prefer the standard bool over sal_Bool, so I replaced
>> sal_Bool with bool in your patch.  The only place we need to use
>> sal_Bool is when dealing with the UNO API.  Other than that, the
>> standard boolean type is preferred.
>>
>> Also, it's a bit weird to use sal_uIntPtr which isn't used much in our
>> code base.  So I replaced that with sal_uInt32.
>
> Kohei,
>
> I have not read the related code, but in principle uintptr_t and
> int32_t are not interchangeable.
>  int32_t is 32 bit long, uintptr_t is supposed to be the same size
> than void* (that is 32 or 64 bits)
>
> in our sources,
> ULONG is typedef'ed as sal_uIntPrt (in tools/solar.h) , which is wrong (*)
> but that explain why Soeren used sal_uIntPtr.
>
> (*) it is wrong because there are multiple model of 64 bits support.
> Notoriously, Microsoft, as usual, instead of fixing their 64 bits
> support bugs, have, once again, turn their bugs into a standard and
> use the so-called LLP64 model, in which sizeof(long) != sizeof(void*)
> Note that ULONG is defined at multiple place, most of them as unsigned
> long (which conflict with the main definition of ULONG = sal_uIntPtr).
> Which raise the following question: has anyone successfully built
> LibreOffice for Win64 ?
>
>
> Note:
> C99 has been a standard for quite a while now. why are we not using
> the standardized type for these. that is:
> int8_t uint8_t, int16_t, uint16_t, int32_t, uint32_t, int64_t,
> uint64_t, intptr_t, uintptr_t,...
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stdint.h
>
> Yes, I know, Microsoft still do not have a compiler compliant with the
> C-standard published 10 years ago... but that can be worked around
> with a compat.h header to hide Microsoft's screw-ups, without
> 'uglyfying' the rest of the code.
>
>>
>> Kohei
>>
>> --
>> Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc
>> <kyoshida at novell.com>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LibreOffice mailing list
>> LibreOffice at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>>
>