From dev-return-23644-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Thu Dec 16 20:45:55 2010
Return-Path: <dev-return-23644-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 98240 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2010 20:45:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2010 20:45:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 64682 invoked by uid 500); 16 Dec 2010 20:45:55 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 64601 invoked by uid 500); 16 Dec 2010 20:45:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:dev@apr.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@apr.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@apr.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.apr.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 64593 invoked by uid 99); 16 Dec 2010 20:45:54 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:45:54 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [72.167.82.88] (HELO p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (72.167.82.88)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:45:45 +0000
Received: (qmail 31179 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2010 20:45:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (76.252.112.72)
  by p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.88) with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2010 20:45:22 -0000
Message-ID: <4D0A7A40.7070202@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:44:48 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] %lld support in apr_snprintf()
References: <37818C6C-E90A-4DA4-A57B-91E8A4612077@temme.net> <4CD3066E.7010402@rowe-clan.net> <1D4C0A5A-5966-41A9-AB53-F3963CD59E80@temme.net> <AANLkTikZe33rW-_PP_be=mDW9JMtu+jtQe-KztwxDh0v@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=fwXYhBVE_gvwY2KiFT3xv36GG=_Vq_gmuW+=J@mail.gmail.com> <1DAE160F-A799-4E68-85F4-4AA7477EC3B8@nasa.gov> <AANLkTin7_-Fw2zv87LQdrVZZLkO_S7gXTOk-rX0rkexa@mail.gmail.com> <2AD67559-8ADA-4E9A-9DBF-3DF913C0D813@jaguNET.com> <yuahbeewutm.fsf@kabuki.mynet> <30554DCD-35E8-45E6-9A46-60E9C077A6DE@jaguNET.com> <1AEDF293-893D-4A61-9896-0FD06BA89C83@jaguNET.com> <1C04627C-2669-4257-90DC-157EAE192999@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <1C04627C-2669-4257-90DC-157EAE192999@jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

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.

WDYT?