You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2011/01/18 14:26:59 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1060105 - /apr/apr/branches/1.5.x/strings/apr_snprintf.c
On 1/17/2011 3:38 PM, jim@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Mon Jan 17 21:38:08 2011
> New Revision: 1060105
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1060105&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix cases where off_t (and APR_OFF_T_FMT) may be "larger" than
> int64 (and APR_INT64_T_FMT).
Simple question, does it makes sense to decouple this from APR_INT64_T
entirely?
Re: svn commit: r1060105 - /apr/apr/branches/1.5.x/strings/apr_snprintf.c
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/18/2011 7:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 8:26 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2011 3:38 PM, jim@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: jim
>>> Date: Mon Jan 17 21:38:08 2011
>>> New Revision: 1060105
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1060105&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Fix cases where off_t (and APR_OFF_T_FMT) may be "larger" than
>>> int64 (and APR_INT64_T_FMT).
>>
>> Simple question, does it makes sense to decouple this from APR_INT64_T
>> entirely?
>>
>
> I'm not sure... We certainly have more history with the logic
> being tied to int64 and so I feel "safer" keeping it coupled
> with that, but making the singular exception when off_t > int64.
> Even if they are the same size, we use the older, proven code path.
I totally agree for 1.x, I was thinking strictly of 2.0. Like you say,
it would be a change deserving of significant attention, like a major
revision would attract.
Re: svn commit: r1060105 - /apr/apr/branches/1.5.x/strings/apr_snprintf.c
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 18, 2011, at 8:26 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 3:38 PM, jim@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: jim
>> Date: Mon Jan 17 21:38:08 2011
>> New Revision: 1060105
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1060105&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fix cases where off_t (and APR_OFF_T_FMT) may be "larger" than
>> int64 (and APR_INT64_T_FMT).
>
> Simple question, does it makes sense to decouple this from APR_INT64_T
> entirely?
>
I'm not sure... We certainly have more history with the logic
being tied to int64 and so I feel "safer" keeping it coupled
with that, but making the singular exception when off_t > int64.
Even if they are the same size, we use the older, proven code path.