justin = {
main feed
,
music
= {
decanted youth
,
yes, exactly, yes!
,
not vampires
,
full archive
}
,
code
= {
cockos
,
reaper
,
wdl
,
ninjam
,
jsfx
,
more
}
,
askjf
,
pubkey
};
Ask Justin Frankel
No reasonable question unanswered since 2009!
Suggested topics: programming, music, sleep, coffee, etc.
Note: please do not ask questions about REAPER features, bugs or scheduling, use the
forums
instead.
Name:
Ask:
Human (enter yes):
[
back to index
] | [
unreplied
] | [
replied
] | [
recent comments
] | [
all
]
Question:
Do we need a built-in print format specifier for WDL_INT64/WDL_UINT64 in wdltypes.h?
Asked by Gio (62.103.216.x) on March 13 2019, 3:21pm
Reply on March 13 2019, 7:46pm (edited at March 13 2019, 7:47pm):
Might be helpful yeah. I'm usually lazy and find that 53 bits is normally enough for me, so I'll often just use printf("%.0f",(double)int64val);
Comments:
Posted by Tale (77.170.68.x) on March 14 2019, 10:01am:
FYI: printf("%lld", int64val) seems to work on most modern compilers (and likewise %llu and %llX for unsigned or hex).
Posted by Gio (62.103.216.x) on March 14 2019, 11:17am:
@Tale: %lld seem to work but since WDL_INT64 variant is (VC++ basic type) __int64 for windows better stay with %I64d?
Posted by Tale (77.170.68.x) on April 10 2019, 6:13am:
[Better late than never, oops...] I believe that %lld and %I64d are equivalent nowadays, but older MSVC only supported %I64d.
Posted by Gio (79.130.176.x) on April 11 2019, 9:48am:
@Tale: You are incredible, thanks. I believe the same too but the usual nerdy annoyances surface for not doing the "right" way, etc.
Comment:
Your Name:
-- Site Owner's Name:
(for human-verification) Comment:
[
back to index
] | [
unreplied
] | [
replied
] | [
recent comments
] | [
all
]
Copyright 2024 Justin Frankel
.
|
RSS