On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 12/16/2010 2:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> >>> Here is my idea... currently, when looking for sizes >>> and formats for off_t, we do from smallest to largest >>> (int -> long -> long long). We also do the same when >>> checking apr_int64_t as well... > >> + # where int and long are the same size. Use the longest >> + # type that fits >> + if test "$ac_cv_sizeof_off_t" = "$ac_cv_sizeof_long_long"; then >> + off_t_fmt='#define APR_OFF_T_FMT APR_INT64_T_FMT' >> + off_t_strfn='apr_strtoi64' > > This is bad, no? We don't know that long_long and off_t aren't 128 bytes. > It seems better to use the explicit "ll" format here instead of the value > reserved for 64 bit ints. >
All I did was re-arrange the order...
