Re: define_c_func/proc and 64-bit return types
- Posted by petelomax Aug 04, 2012
- 1261 views
where are you getting this from?
There's a pattern, as matt said, but if it has to break I can cope.
As far as Ansi/Unicode versions of dll routines go, don't we just leave that up to the programmer? Should 64-bit really be any different?
I don't understand what you mean. Leave what up to the programmer?
When you run things on 64-bit Windows, 32-bit programs load dlls from C:\Windows\SYSWOW64 whereas 64-bit applications load them from C:\Windows\system32 (just to maximise confusion). True, that should make no difference, but I suspect it probably will.
as well as changing C_INT from #01000004 on 32-bit to #01000008 on 64-bit.
Why? C's int is still 4 bytes on gcc/linux/gnu .. What would be the point? What platform has 8 byte sized ints such that the C compiler has sizeof(int) == 8?
Oh. size_t is however 8. My only experience with 64-bit was writing a kernel mode driver, utterly blind, no debugging facilities whatsoever (until very late in the day when I figured out how to squirt things down a named pipe that another program could then display). So that code chucks a few 8 byte ints at routines that probably (I will never know) only read 4 bytes (thank god for little endian). One thing I can tell you is that the 64-bit version of that code is utterly and completely different to the 32-bit code that preceded it. Now that someone has said it, I will concede that OpenEu has a translator in the middle (which I did not have in C++) to do some and possibly all of the mangling.
Pete
Edit: I just found this, see table N2 in http://www.viva64.com/en/a/0004/#ID0ERG
