Re: [Bug-XBoard] We distribute wrongly compiled WinBoard binaries

[Eric Mullins]

h.g. muller wrote:
> > That can be done.  But if you do that, then in makefile.ms, you must 
> > always -DUSE_I64.
>
> That case would already be covered because the _MSC_VER switch is set 
> there, not?
> because then you would also need other basic type names and constant 
> suffixes for
> the long data types. So I was thinking about a structure like
>
> #ifdef _WIN32
>   #ifdef _MSC_VER
>     //define MSCtypes
>     #define u64Display "%I64u"
>   #else
>     //define standard C types
>     #ifdef USE_I64
>       #define u64Display "%I64u"
>     #else
>       #define u64Display "%llu"
>     #endif
> #else
>     //define standard C types
>     #define u64Display "%llu"
> #endif
>
> (where only the innermost #ifdef is new).


No.  You do not want to check against _MSC_VER for the format 
specification.  What matters is linking against the msvcrt, not the 
compiler used.  You *could* check the _MSC_VER in order to prefer "%lld" 
when you know you'll be linking with non-buggy versions.  But since they 
are back-compatible to support the %I64 syntax, it isn't necessary.

You DO want to check against _MSC_VER for the data type itself.  When 
using MS compilers, it needs to be __int64 of some flavor, and long long 
for non-MS compilers.  Linking with the msvcrt is irrelevant for the 
data type itself.