"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 7:15 PM
>
>
> > "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > trawick 01/05/13 08:34:18
> > > >
> > > > Modified: test test_apr.h testmd5.c testproc.c
> > > > Log:
> > > > fix some bad parms to printf/fprintf
> > > >
> > > > - printf("Error was %ld : %s\n", rv, strerror(rv)); \
> > > > + printf("Error was %d : %s\n", rv, strerror(rv)); \
> > >
> > > Do I smell a need for an APR_STATUS_T_FMT ? It doesn't seem we can assume
> > > this on 64 bit machines (?).
> >
> > apr_status_t is always int so %d is always correct (though I suppose
> > the code in apr_errno.h could change).
>
> No. It's always a 32 bit int ... I want my fully 64 bit machine (none of this
> silly 32 bit numeric magic with 64 bit pointer cruft). And at least BEOS
> won't
> accept %d for a 32bit int representation.
Please look at the declaration in apr_errno.h. It is always int, and
%d is always correct for int. It is not apr_int32_t or apr_uint32_t
or anything like that. The right format string doesn't vary between
systems.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
