Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 67091 invoked by uid 500); 16 Dec 2001 20:43:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 67080 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2001 20:43:29 -0000 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 12:41:52 -0800 From: Harrie Hazewinkel To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] a type mismatch correction (signed/unsigned) Message-ID: <10851098.1008506512@localhost> In-Reply-To: References: <5913623.1007740177@localhost> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --On Sunday, December 16, 2001 10:52 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick wrote: > Harrie Hazewinkel writes: > >> The attached patch fixes a type mismatch discovered on >> win32. > > I don't think ap_getline() and ap_rgetline() should have different > types for the buffer-size parameter. > > What is the type mismatch, anyway? a type mismatch between a signed int which is in the function parameter list and its usage where is is compared to unsigned int (apr_size_t). And I agree that actually ap_getline() and ap_rgetline() should have the same type for buffer size. I would even extend it to everywhere a buffer size is used in Apache one should use apr_size_t. Harrie