- 2004.09.16 19:23 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.09.16 22:39 "[Tiff] Re: BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Ian Ameline
-
2004.09.17 00:09 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 00:32 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.09.17 01:54 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2004.09.17 02:29 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 03:08 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Chris Cox
-
2004.09.17 04:20 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 04:39 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Chris Cox
-
2004.09.17 11:25 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.17 14:31 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 11:25 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.09.17 05:46 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.09.17 11:40 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.17 13:11 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.09.17 15:10 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Fernando Loygorri
-
2004.09.17 15:10 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 15:55 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Fernando Loygorri
- 2004.09.17 16:00 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.09.17 16:13 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.17 16:43 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2004.09.17 21:41 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Chris Cox
-
2004.09.17 15:55 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Fernando Loygorri
-
2004.09.17 15:10 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 11:40 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.17 11:38 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.09.17 04:39 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Chris Cox
-
2004.09.17 04:20 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2004.09.17 06:35 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.09.17 01:54 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 00:32 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.19 12:31 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.09.19 16:43 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
2004.09.17 16:00 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that negative 64-bit values should have any meaning. They should be outlawed by the spec. I'm proposing that the spec outlaw values with the most-significant bit set, and this only to accommodate languages like Java that have a 64-bit signed type but no 64-bit unsigned type.
FGL,
As a practical matter Java or other unsigned-deficient languages can just use a signed 64bit integer type. It isn't like there will in practice be any objects with an offset of more than 2^63 anyways. In fact, libtiff used a signed int for toff_t till a few years ago too.
I'm sure the folks said the same thing about 32bit offsets once, but I am convinced no one will be able to track me down and make me sorry for this suggestion when it starts to matter.
Best regards,
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent