apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <...@manyfish.co.uk>
Subject Re: Solving the off_t problem in APR 1.0
Date Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:22:17 GMT
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:19:09PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 04:45:26PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> > So I guess I'll look into redoing it to use int, long or long long
> > instead.
> 
> I found some time to look at this.  The types I'm using now match the
> formats we were using before.  So we shouldn't have an ABI conflict.  If
> we do we had a bug with the formats already.
> 
> The one case where this may exist would be 64-bit archs with 64-bit
> off_t's.  These platforms could use long long or long for the off_t.
> They might choose differently than we have for apr_int64_t.  I don't
> know of any other way to deal with this than what was already done with
> the LFS platforms that use long for off_t.  We'll simply have to detect
> these platforms one by one and apply exceptions for them.

Alternatively, apr_off_t could be set to an integer type only on
platforms where sizeof(int)==4: for real LP64 platforms (and those
sizeof(int)==2 platforms which APR really doesn't build on anyway), just
leave apr_off_t defined to off_t.

This would be perhaps be simpler...

joe

Mime
View raw message