Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>
Delivered-To: info@awaresystems.be
Received: (qmail 19296 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2008 19:36:56 -0000
Received: from janet.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.136.6])
          (envelope-sender <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
          by angelia.telenet-ops.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <info@awaresystems.be>; 11 Aug 2008 19:36:56 -0000
Received: from waldo.telenet-ops.be (waldo.telenet-ops.be [195.130.136.10])
	by janet.telenet-ops.be (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m7BJatYK017804
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:36:55 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by waldo.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id DD8BA1C006
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from penia.telenet-ops.be (penia.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.39])
	by waldo.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29AB1C004
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (r153.dmsolutions.ca [209.217.116.153])
	by penia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7320533E60E
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (duke.maptools.org [127.0.0.1])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m7BJZJRl014766;
	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:36:07 -0400
Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.231])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m7BJZHOf014763
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:35:17 -0400
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id r21so467408wxc.27
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to
	:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	bh=oaj9OY4ZeQ2ASrHkpO4VoEkLdRRsElYvBlT+FnWNRhM=;
	b=s56qlSj6nBFndWsWDGi8gjaNBQjyPDBwYPwzCudP022Y4fvXNgaT6SukqtsJ4HkR6T
	uv8zpAFz7LEVcE+j1LY1owVMg3UyA8AWeyuXbrmoxN7+vOiDzRHkWGPJV+wk0jsTKCPJ
	K7t0kcNc1OKLlzcu+j+iSk2jQ6ooxKNXhX7+k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
	:references;
	b=Ir9yECGQs2oKAEHoSOn3ZQg4arwbKBBjKxVNr9KzQCWNdPYQaTUvHR6LjQAbFhcctH
	v0Hmu8MGdt8iTpU4iTqpaMM5Ym8SqqZS5yDlwxyJ8AfaehzXyJv3/ksFghqFmTfcF1VH
	AlvfDPSTTQBhL8g6aSWHi8ZRa8SKyQLWaT1LA=
Received: by 10.90.113.17 with SMTP id l17mr6050094agc.66.1218483316093;
	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.139.5 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5a28e8c20808111235o3faede7o69900dc9d55633be@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:35:16 -0400
From: "Mikhail Kruk" <meshko@gmail.com>
To: "Bob Friesenhahn" <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] windows 64 bit build
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.64.0808111422260.1107@freddy.simplesystems.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5a28e8c20808111057k7bec8c86r1f56a7239d468afe@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.SOC.4.64.0808111422260.1107@freddy.simplesystems.org>
Cc: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X]

OK... what would be a good way of fixing it?  Doesn't look like
TIFFFdOpen interface should be changed; I'm not sure why is it used to
pass Windows HANDLEs, sounds confusing (as Windows has normal int file
descriptors as well).  Should we add new functions TIFFHndlOpen or
something like that?  Win32 only?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
<bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Mikhail Kruk wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to build LibTiff for 64 bit Windows.
>> I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this problem in tif_win32.c
>> (in TIFFOpen()):
>>
>> tif = TIFFFdOpen((int)fd, name, mode);
>>
>> fd is a void * which is 64 bit on Windows, int is 32 bit.
>
> This does seem like a problem, particularly if the extra bits are actually
> used.  I don't believe that libtiff has been ported to 64-bit Windows even
> though it mostly works ok for 64-bit Unix systems. 64-bit Windows is strange
> since 'long' is still 32-bits.
>
> Since this seems like a new area for libtiff, I recommend using the
> 4.0.0beta2 preliminary release, or libtiff CVS, so that it is easier to
> formulate and test fixes.  Old releases are never fixed.
>
> Bob
> ======================================
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
