On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:58:31 +0200, Christoph Hormann  
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>>  How is this any different from having to download libjpeg, or libpng?
>
> Those libs are very small, so small that they are included in the  
> POV-Ray distribution.  And they are much more widely tested.


The parts that actually need to be included are only a little over 3 MB,  
on par with the tiff library included in the POV-Ray distribution. The  
archive you can download from the OpenEXR website contains a whole lot of  
other stuff not needed to compile the library.



> Don't get me wrong - if support for a new format allows something not  
> possible before that's good but i do not yet see this happening.  And  
> even if it does the drawbacks are significant.


What other significant drawbacks do you see, other than portability  
concerns?



>>  By the way: Is it possible to compile and run POV-Ray on a platform  
>> where  'long' is less than 32 bits?
>
> AFAIK the standard defines 'long' as at least 32 bit.


As far as *I* know, the standard does not. 'long' must be at least as big  
as 'int', which must be at least as big as 'short', which must be at least  
16 bits. 'int' must also be at least as big as 'char'.
Strictly speaking, the standard does not even guarantee that the  
fundamental types have sizes that are powers of two. Is POV-Ray portable  
to systems where CHAR_BIT == 9?



> Then don't name it 'uint32' (which implies being 32 bit).


Would it have been acceptable to you if I had named it  
'uint_at_least_32_bits'?



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message