apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] %lld support in apr_snprintf()
Date Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:31:19 GMT

On Dec 16, 2010, at 4:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 12/16/2010 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +    # 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...
> 
> Not arguing, suggesting that the thorough test is either to compare the
> ac_cv_sizeof_off_t to 8, and then use APR_OFF_T_FMT, or failing that, instead
> see if it matches long_long, and use an explicit "ll".
> 

Oh, yeah. Well, it's not only the format but
everything as well... After all, if long long is 128bits,
you don't want to use apr_strtoi64 either.

I would suggest that we tackle that issue separately?


Mime
View raw message