Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of poirier@pobox.com designates
 208.72.237.35 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=clxwfWTmAb489BwwdkoP3kVvvCYTXTzE
	8vXWNDD+u6g5E9SKS+bOxKPMa2qYAlbEtSyKB+A168e2trfr7S+0w1lmO5unxPqb
	gMdXchbjgPsF2mzH07jTNEL/1HbV/J55oRiM4T9YYly9I2kwlgaoH62EnPzYMUHe
	58DebQDhJ9c=
From: Dan Poirier <poirier@pobox.com>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] %lld support in apr_snprintf()
In-Reply-To: <2AD67559-8ADA-4E9A-9DBF-3DF913C0D813@jaguNET.com> (Jim
 Jagielski's message of "Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:27:24 -0500")
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>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (darwin)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:11:01 -0500
Message-ID: <yuahbeewutm.fsf@kabuki.mynet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mon. 2010-11-08 at 10:27 AM EST, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Chris Knight
>> <Christopher.D.Knight@nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> Exactly, the problem only appears on 64-bit Snow Leopard. See my patch in Bugzilla, which I've verified. (Unsure if the below would also work, been a long time since I diagnosed.)
>> 
>> What I understood was that %lld is supposed to work, independent of
>> which APR_*_FMT defines use %lld.
>> 
>> I haven't tried the other patches on Leopard-64 to see which help there.
>> 
>
> If one forces *just* 64bit, then, afaict, the patch is not needed.
> It's only if one builds APR with both i386 and x86_64 that
> things break...

That's not my experience.  If I build just 64bit (CC="gcc -arch
x86_64"), testfmt fails on APR_OFF_T_FMT.  (And httpd fails most of its
byterange tests.)

With Sander's patch to notice the second "l" in "%ll?", that test
works but another one, using APR_UINT64_T_FMT, fails.  I haven't dug
into that one yet.

Dan