On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:54:24PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Author: jorton > >Date: Mon Oct 29 04:19:02 2007 > >New Revision: 589583 ... > >+# breaking ABI. > >+ino_t_value=ino_t > >+if test "$ac_cv_sizeof_long" = "4"; then > >+ APR_CHECK_TYPES_COMPATIBLE(ino_t, unsigned long, > >+ ino_t_value="unsigned long") > >+fi > >+AC_MSG_NOTICE([using $ino_t_value for ino_t]) > > This doesn't look right for 32 platforms built without 64 bit off's, and > consider they might initially build on one which doesn't support the newer > types, but then might compile add ins on an updated kernel, eh?
I can't parse that. > Shouldn't we continue to lock this /down/ to unsigned int where we know this > is true? In fact, I'd add unsigned short to that list for safety. No, unless you know of a platform where ino_t is defined to be anything other than a 32-bit unsigned long *and* varies by _FILE_OFFSET_BITS? Otherwise configure is just testing for hypothetical platforms, which is a waste of cycles. joe
