🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!

Back to AngelCode

64bit size_t vs asUINT

kulik · 2006-05-06T05:13:58

I tried to compile AngelScript because I am very interested to support such scripting system in my engine. I got 64bit system however (gentoo linux). When I try to compile it I get loads of easily-solveable errors (such as size_t GetLength() isn't equal to asUINT GetLength(), because sizeof( size_t ) != sizeof( unsigned int ) under 64bit). I could correct all these, but first I want to know if somebody has the same problem or if I could correct these and post patches. If I read it correctly AngelScript is supposed to support 64bit (only Win64?) as said in AngelScript 2.6.0 release thread. btw: I declared all defines needed to compile this on 64bit machine as stated in the thread. (AS_MAX_PORTABILITY and AS_64BIT_PTR). If you don't know what I am talking about, take a look in as_array.h, there is: template <class T> class asCArray { public: ... size_t GetCapacity() const; ... size_t GetLength() const; ... size_t length; size_t maxLength; }; This seems right, but later in that file: template <class T> asUINT asCArray<T>::GetLength() const { return length; } ... template <class T> asUINT asCArray<T>::GetCapacity() const { return maxLength; } It's implemented with asUINT return type but declared with size_t return type. Which doesn't seem right and gcc has the same opinion.

AngelCode Affiliates

Started by kulik April 28, 2006 01:51 PM

9 comments, last by kulik 18 years, 2 months ago

kulik

102

Author

May 06, 2006 05:13 AM

Quote: Original post by Deyja
Sure. But it's witchlord's decision to let anyone else modify the source directly. And, nothing against anyone who wants to contribute so directly, I would rather see the library safe in his hands then shared around. I haven't seen a public project that didn't turn into a mess.

I understood that wrong I think. I though you were going to manage separate branches for x86 and amd64.