Re: [AD] AMD64 patch

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric Botcazou wrote:

> > Attached is another patch.  Many of my changes from `long' to `int'
> > (e.g. for holding pixel values) were not really necessary so reverted
> > those.
> >    
>
> Why?
>  

In some places, the change from long to int would have changed the API 
unnecessarily (I'm thinking of the blender functions, but maybe there 
were more).

In other places where it didn't really matter either way, I thought it 
would be best just to leave them alone.  Then the assumption on the 
sizeof(int) can remain as it is now (somewhere between 16-bits and 
32-bits) and long can continue to be used to hold values which need 
32-bits.  Is there any reason to prefer a 32-bit integer over a 64-bit 
integer on a 64-bit machine, e.g. to hold single pixel values?

Peter


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 21/01/2005