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
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta