portability

I'm porting my application from 32 bit to 64 bit. Currently, the code compiles under both architectures, but the results are different. For various reasons, I'm using floats instead of doubles. I assume that there is some implicit upconverting from float to double happening on one machine and not the other. Is there a way to control for this, or specific gotchas I should be looking for? edited to add: 32 bit platform gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33) Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2218 HE 64 bit platform gcc (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) 4.3.3 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU Applying the

Frequently I'm brainstormed with programming ideas that I would like to directly code. More or less like "Wow, that algorithm will rock! I need to write it now!". For this kind of "impulse" to write, I use http://www.jarte.com/ that is a cool portable text editor. If I'm near a cybecafe or a friend computer, I just plug the usb pen drive and start to write... So, I would like: 1) a portable minimalist IDE 2) with minimal OS requirement (ie.: I want run from XP, Vista, etc...) 3) any modern language (I can learn a new language if needed. I just want write/test the algoritm) 4) Syntax Highlight

How do I type a floating point infinity literal in python? I have heard inf = float('inf') is non portable. Thus, I have had the following recommended: inf = 1e400 Is either of these standard, or portable? What is best practice? In python 2.6 it is portable if the CPU supports it The float() function will now turn the string nan into an IEEE 754 Not A Number value, and +inf and -inf into positive or negative infinity. This works on any platform with IEEE 754 semantics. float('inf') is non portable as in not portable back to Python 2.5 when the string output varies between platforms. From 2.6

anyone know a portable version of mysql? I know xampp but it comes with PHP and Apache together anyone know how to isolate the mysql? You can download the MySQL Essentials version and make a few small changes to directories in the my.ini file to use relative paths instead of absolute paths. Then you can run the server directly without having to install or use a Windows service. Download a MySQL .zip file (instead of an .msi , though you could get the .msi and use 7Zip or Orca to extract the files from it). Extract the files. At a minimum you need the bin and share directories (actually, in bin

As the title suggests — can I be reasonably sure that mktemp will exist on any unix-y operating system I'm likely to encounter? Chris Johnsen POSIX does not seem to specify mktemp(1) . It looks like most modern systems have it, but the available functionality and the semantics of the options vary between implementations (so particular invocations may not be portable): mktemp(1) from OpenBSD — mktemp(1) originated in OpenBSD 2.1 mktemp(1) from FreeBSD mktemp(1) from Mac OS X — almost always the same as from FreeBSD mktemp(1) from Todd C. Miller of sudo fame mktemp(1) from Solaris mktemp(1) from

I'm usually using the following shebang declaration in my Python scripts: #!/usr/bin/python Recently, I've came across this shebang declaration: #!/usr/bin/env python In the script documentation, it was noted that using this form is "more portable". What does this declaration mean? How come there's a space in the middle of the path? Does it actually contribute to protability? #!/usr/bin/env python is more portable because in general the program /usr/bin/env can be used to "activate" the desired command without full path. Otherwise, you would have to specify the full path of the Python

I have some class libraries with a non-trivial amount of existing code. The class libraries currently target .NET 4.0. Is there any guidance on how to convert these libraries to be portable libraries? From looking at the .csproj, it doesn't appear that there are a lot of differences: <Import Project="$(MSBuildExtensionsPath32)\Microsoft\Portable\$(TargetFrameworkVersion)\Microsoft.Portable.CSharp.targets" /> and <ProjectTypeGuids>{786C830F-07A1-408B-BD7F-6EE04809D6DB};{FAE04EC0-301F-11D3-BF4B-00C04F79EFBC}</ProjectTypeGuids> Is it a good or bad idea to try converting an existing class library