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 http://ben.reser.org "Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking." - H.L. Mencken