On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 02:48:57PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > > > >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. > > You missed my point. Take RandomOS Version 6.0 - build APR, no variant for > _FILE_OFFSET_BITS, it's equivilant to unsigned int. > > Now run an upgrade to RandomOS V7.0, voila, it picks up long off_t semantics > and 32 more ino_t bits, whoopie!
That is not related to the change in question. There are a variety of different ways in which APR can potentially change ABI when rebuilt after an OS upgrade, but the use of ino_t is not one of them. joe
