On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:19:09PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 04:45:26PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote: > > So I guess I'll look into redoing it to use int, long or long long > > instead. > > I found some time to look at this. The types I'm using now match the > formats we were using before. So we shouldn't have an ABI conflict. If > we do we had a bug with the formats already. > > The one case where this may exist would be 64-bit archs with 64-bit > off_t's. These platforms could use long long or long for the off_t. > They might choose differently than we have for apr_int64_t. I don't > know of any other way to deal with this than what was already done with > the LFS platforms that use long for off_t. We'll simply have to detect > these platforms one by one and apply exceptions for them.
Alternatively, apr_off_t could be set to an integer type only on platforms where sizeof(int)==4: for real LP64 platforms (and those sizeof(int)==2 platforms which APR really doesn't build on anyway), just leave apr_off_t defined to off_t. This would be perhaps be simpler... joe
