Hi.
What should we do?
If you give me a solution as a patch, I can test.
Regards.
Masaru
2007/6/1, Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh@gmail.com>:
> Hi David,
>
> On 5/30/07, David James <james@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
> > On 5/28/07, Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/27/07, Masaru Tsuchiyama <m.tmatma@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
>
> > > apr_uint64_t is now used in the Subversion headers. The patch below fixes the
> > > build errors for me, but the tests don't pass.
> >
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > In the Ruby bindings, I see that you used "%clear long long" to clear
> > out the old SWIG typemaps. Does this work in the Python bindings? If
> > so, perhaps we should get rid of this hack to python.swg altogether
> > and just use %clear long long and/or %clear unsigned long long.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
>
> I don't see why not. But I think it probably belongs in apr.swg
> instead of svn_global.swg.
>
> For that matter, the stuff I did in svn_global.swg for the Ruby
> bindings probably belongs in apr.swg too. Another change I'd like to
> see is to define the typemaps in terms of the apr types instead of
> long long and unsigned long long. I experimented with this, but I was
> never able to make it work quite right.
>
> Ultimately, I'd like us to generate a little more synergy among the
> differenent SWIG based bindings so we are using the same techniques to
> accomplish the same goals (whether it is hacking the SWIG type files
> or "%clear"ing the non-portable types or anything else). (Currently
> the Perl bindings won't compile with VC6 with the same problem that
> Masaru discovered in the Python bindings, and I've worked around
> locally for the Ruby bindings.)
>
> --
> Joe
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jun 9 00:54:09 2007