Re: Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64?
Date
Msg-id 28438.1289921030@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64?  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Do you still have a reference to the page that said they will never be
> assigned that high?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms810720.aspx

which says
   USER and GDI handles are sign extended 32b values      To facilitate the porting, a decision has been made that
thesesystem   handles should stay as 32b values, sign extended to 64b on the 64b   platform. That is, the individual
handletypes are still based on the   HANDLE type, which maps to void *, and so the size of the handle is the   size of
thepointer, i.e. 4 bytes on 32b and 8 bytes on 64b. However,   the actual value of the handle on the 64b platform,
(i.e.the meaningful   bits), fits within the lower 32b, while the upper bits just carry the   sign.      This should
makeit easy to port the majority of the application   code. Handling of the special values, like -1, should be fairly
transparent.It also should agree nicely with all the cases where the   handles had been remoted with the help of the
IDLdefinitions from the   public file wtypes.idl. However, care needs to be taken when remoting   the handles was done
viaa DWORD, as the upper long should be properly   sign extended on the 64b side. The app should use HandleToLong() and
 LongToHandle() macros (inline functions) to do the casting right.
 

What's not clear to me is whether the section title means that only
certain handles have this guarantee, and if so whether we have to worry
about running into ones that don't.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: describe objects, as in pg_depend
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: changing MyDatabaseId