[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: Huston, we have a problem: Q_UINT32 vs. unsigned long
From:       Bo Thorsen <bo () sonofthor ! dk>
Date:       2004-06-22 7:01:57
Message-ID: 200406220901.57782.bo () sonofthor ! dk
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Monday 21 June 2004 17:10, Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> just found that we are using a Q_UINT32 as return value of
>
>      MessageProperty::serialChache()
>
> while we are using a simple "unsigned int" as parameter in nearly
> all of the messages working with the serNum, e.g. in
>
>      KMMsgBase::getSerNum()
>
> and in many more of them.
>
> Sad to say I am in a terrible hurry to match a deadline so there is
> no chance I can dig into the code to trace all ways the serial numbers
> go and adjust them accordingly.
>
> But still: The issue is dangerous, it may break on 64bit machines.
>
> Who is able and has the time to solve this issue?

s/unsigned int/unsigned long/ up there.

The problem here is that Q_UINT32 is always a 32 bit unsigned number, but 
an unsigned long is 64 bit on 64 bit platforms like the new Athlon 64s.

I haven't checked the code, only been pointed to the problem by 
Karl-Heinz, and I don't know if it's a problem. But it looks to me like 
we have a janitor job here to make all of them have the same size always.

It's of course tempting to take advantage of the bigger capability of a 64 
bit system, but AFAIK the number stored in the index file is always 32 
bit, so that's not possible.

Bo.

-- 

     Bo Thorsen                 |   Praestevejen 4
     Senior Software Engineer   |   5290 Marslev
     Klarälvdalens Datakonsult  |   Denmark

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]