Joe Orton wrote:
CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] since the code in question is in APR.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
On Feb 22, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
+ /*
+ * Try to reduce the following casting mess: We know that point will be
+ * larger equal 0 now and forever and thus that point (apr_off_t) and
+ * apr_size_t will fit into apr_uint64_t in any case.
+ */
Do we really know that? Is that confirmed at configure
time?
Do we have any integer on any platform that we support that is larger
as apr_uint64_t / apr_int64_t?
I always thought that they are the largest and that on no platform
we have any integers with more than 64 bit.
APR doesn't support any platform where sizeof(apr_off_t) > 8, that is
correct.
Don't we know for a fact that apr_off_t >= apr_size_t on all platforms,
today?
I can't see how apr supporting only file offsets smaller than available
memory would ever be desirable.
