[gdal-dev] RE : Re: Call for discusson on RFC 31 - OGR 64bit Integer Fields and FIDs

[Even Rouault]

Dmitriy, 

The main reason for the new symbol is that if we change the return type it might cause crashing problems that are not detected at compile time if GetFID is used in a printf like function. For example

printf("%ld %s", GetFID (), str)

Even

---
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com

<div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div><div>De : Dmitriy Baryshnikov <bishop.dev at gmail.com> </div><div>Date :24/01/2015  14:07  (GMT+01:00) </div><div>A : gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org </div><div>Objet : Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discusson on RFC 31 - OGR 64bit Integer
  Fields and FIDs </div><div>
</div>Hi Even,

The RFC looks good. One note. May be in GDAL 2 we can use GetFID instead 
GetFID64? Because we can allow some incompatibility between GDAL 1.x and 
GDAL 2.x.

Best regards,
     Dmitry

23.01.2015 18:17, Even Rouault пишет:
> Hi,
>
> This is a call for discussion on revisiting the existing RFC 31 - OGR 64bit
> Integer Fields and FIDs, initiated by Frank in 2010 and that I've extended.
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc31_ogr_64
>
> Below the summary :
> """
> This RFC addresses steps to upgrade OGR to support 64bit integer fields and
> feature ids. Many feature data formats support wide integers, and the
> inability to transform these through OGR causes increasing numbers of
> problems.
> """
>
> A first discussion took place at http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-
> dev/2010-November/thread.html#26883. My main remarks at that time were about
> compatibility issues, but as this would go in GDAL 2.0, they are likely less
> critical.
>
> Even
>

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20150124/d9e1e0b9/attachment.html>