After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 436011 - 64 bit system, int incompatible with pointer
64 bit system, int incompatible with pointer
Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE
Product: vala
Classification: Core
Component: Semantic Analyzer
0.0.x
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: Jürg Billeter
Vala maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-05-05 01:40 UTC by Michael Lawrence
Modified: 2008-11-20 21:13 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Michael Lawrence 2007-05-05 01:40:40 UTC
Please describe the problem:
When converting between integers and pointers (like when storing integers in an SList), the following error is reported on 64 bit systems:
error: `int' is incompatible with `pointer'

This conversion should be possible, since ints easily fit within pointers on 64 bit systems.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Try to compile code involving int/pointer conversion on a 64 bit system.
2. 
3. 


Actual results:
Emits the above error

Expected results:
Should compile..

Does this happen every time?
Yes

Other information:
Comment 1 Jürg Billeter 2007-05-09 11:14:42 UTC
Simply appending an integer to a GLib.SList<int> works fine here, can you post a minimal example where the reported error occurs?
Comment 2 Michael Lawrence 2007-05-10 10:03:04 UTC
Unfortunately, I don't have access to a 64 bit machine to test this. The error was reported by one of our users who got the code out of our svn. 
Comment 3 Jürg Billeter 2007-05-10 11:07:19 UTC
Ok, closing then, please reopen if you have a concrete example of the problem.
Comment 4 Marc-Andre Lureau 2008-10-18 19:13:33 UTC
test case added to vala-tests. It produces only a warning if removing -Werror
Comment 5 Jürg Billeter 2008-10-25 07:11:57 UTC
The test case in vala-tests passes here on x86_64, can you elaborate?