On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 2:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here is my idea... currently, when looking for sizes
>>> and formats for off_t, we do from smallest to largest
>>> (int -> long -> long long). We also do the same when
>>> checking apr_int64_t as well...
>
>> + # where int and long are the same size. Use the longest
>> + # type that fits
>> + if test "$ac_cv_sizeof_off_t" = "$ac_cv_sizeof_long_long"; then
>> + off_t_fmt='#define APR_OFF_T_FMT APR_INT64_T_FMT'
>> + off_t_strfn='apr_strtoi64'
>
> This is bad, no? We don't know that long_long and off_t aren't 128 bytes.
> It seems better to use the explicit "ll" format here instead of the value
> reserved for 64 bit ints.
>
All I did was re-arrange the order...
|