At 06:03 PM 3/25/2004, Joe Orton wrote: >On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:49:09PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote: >> >> That's a bad idea, IMHO, because ARP_HAS_LARGE_FILES will still report >> false. You suggest to create a mess, where the library will report one >> thing but behave as another. > >I was thinking about this today as well... what do you expect >APR_HAS_LARGE_FILES to actually mean? "sizeof(apr_off_t) > >sizeof(apr_size_t)"? or "sizeof(apr_off_t) > off_t"? or >sizeof(apr_off_t)==8? Any of these are trivial to implement in the >configure script.
.02 euro (worth more than US 2c) from the guy who invented the flag? APR_HAS_LARGE_FILES means that an apr_off_t is bigger than all addressable memory (size_t). You can't fit the apr_off_t into any [apr_][s]size_t placeholder. Honestly I dont care if there is any relationship between óff_t and apr_off_t, otherwise why did we define our own type? It's (possibly) an implementation dependent detail but otherwise irrelevant. Bill
