Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 23252 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2001 20:21:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 22903 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 20:21:07 -0000 From: Cliff Woolley To: new-httpd@apache.org MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at mail.virginia.edu Subject: RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/generators mod_status.c Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:20:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N I said: > How about doing it this way? Treat up_time as an apr_uint32_t number of > seconds of uptime; days, hrs, mins, and secs are also > apr_uint32_t's. This lost something in the translation from when it was a patch to when I was replying to Ryan's commit. What I ended up saying was identical to what Bill's commit originally did; what I meant to say was that you can use apr_uint32_t without using %ld or %lld, which is where the trouble comes in. In other words, the only part I was questioning was the distinction between apr_interval_time_t and apr_uint32_t, essentially just agreeing with/defending Bill's original choice of apr_uint32_t. --Cliff