2004.02.09 17:02 "[Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Don Ellis
-
2004.02.09 17:46 "Re: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.02.09 18:07 "Re: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.02.09 19:42 "RE: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Don Ellis
- 2004.02.09 19:51 "RE: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2004.02.09 19:58 "Re: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.02.09 19:59 "RE: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Thomas J. Kacvinsky
- 2004.02.09 20:18 "RE: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Chris Cox
- 2004.02.09 19:48 "Re: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.02.09 19:42 "RE: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Don Ellis
-
2004.02.09 18:07 "Re: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Frank Warmerdam
2004.02.09 17:46 "Re: [Tiff] Photoshop 8.0 and libtiff", by Bob Friesenhahn
Is it possible to use 'unsigned int' or 'unsigned long' instead? The 32-bit CPU is not going to be able to address more range than an 'unsigned int' will support. All that a 64-bit signed type buys you is support for negative values. Does use of an unsigned type cause problems for the interface?
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen