On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
In general, that patch looks truly suspicious since it seems to me
it's typecasting wildly and not even using its newly invented
MAX_APR_SIZE_T in all places, because (apr_size_t)(-1) really is the
same thing, right?
No, MAX_APR_SIZE_T and (apr_size_t)(-1) might be different depending on the
platform. MAX_APR_SIZE_T is ~(apr_size_t)(0).
Won't both be 0xff...ff as long as apr_size_t is unsigned (which it
should be)? If not, the code makes even less sense...
Both casting signed -1 to unsigned and flipping the bits of 0 are
standard methods to get the max-value possible to store in a
variable...
As I have overcome my confusion regarding apr_off_t / apr_size_t I
hope to have a look into the problem and find a solution how to do
all the casting stuff correctly.
My tip would be: less casts. If they're needed they're usually a sign
of bad design or a thinko somewhere.
/Nikke
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Data, find the USS Pasteur." - Picard
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
