On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 03:22:17PM +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
> 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...
I'm going to try and find time to look at this alternative solution
tomorrow. I want to have this "closed" in APR before we put out
Subversion 1.0.
--
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
|