swap_endian64 non-portable implementation

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. compilation with Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0
2.
3.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

swap_endian64()

bitutils.c(120) : error C2059: syntax error : 'bad suffix on number'
bitutils.c(120) : error C2146: syntax error : missing ')' before 
identifier 'l'
bitutils.c(120) : error C2059: syntax error : 'bad suffix on number'
bitutils.c(120) : error C2059: syntax error : 'bad suffix on number'
bitutils.c(120) : error C2059: syntax error : 'bad suffix on number'

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

Windows XP

Please provide any additional information below.

I got around this by commeting out the whole function. I did not need it 
for pn531.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by roger.br...@gtempaccount.com on 4 Oct 2009 at 10:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ai, VC6++ is now 11 years old. Do you really want us to fix this? It was even
released before the ANSI C99 was released which we are using. We may wan to 
decide
that "migrating" to newer (free: MinGW+gcc/Windows7sdk+vs2008cl) environments 
will be
required. 

Original comment by r...@libnfc.org on 31 Oct 2009 at 1:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Your call. It is nice to be able to deliver a Win32 solution without requiring 
the 
redist files from MSVC 2008.

Original comment by roger.br...@gtempaccount.com on 1 Nov 2009 at 8:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Is there is a C99 compiliant compiler under Windows before VS2008 but newer than
11-years-old VC6 ? MinGW+GCC couldn't be a good solution ?

Original comment by romu...@libnfc.org on 2 Nov 2009 at 9:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The trick is to compile the executables with /MT (+/MTd) in stead of /MD 
(+/MDd).
This will drop the dependency for .manifest files and all those other crap. The
(example) GNU Makefile that I wrote in the win32-dir of the SVN demonstrates 
this.

But indeed MinGW+GCC sounds very sweet to me, I will make sure it stays M$VC
compatible (compiler specifics), but we can do official support only for MinGW 
compiling?

Original comment by r...@libnfc.org on 3 Nov 2009 at 1:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for report this issue.

From 1.3.0, we will only support C99 compilation.

Original comment by romu...@libnfc.org on 7 Dec 2009 at 1:23

• Changed state: WontFix