On Feb 22, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 02/22/2008 07:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] since the code in question is in APR.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
wrote:
On Feb 22, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
+ /*
+ * Try to reduce the following casting mess: We know that
point will be
+ * larger equal 0 now and forever and thus that point
(apr_off_t) and
+ * apr_size_t will fit into apr_uint64_t in any case.
+ */
Do we really know that? Is that confirmed at configure
time?
Do we have any integer on any platform that we support that is
larger
as apr_uint64_t / apr_int64_t?
I always thought that they are the largest and that on no platform
we have any integers with more than 64 bit.
APR doesn't support any platform where sizeof(apr_off_t) > 8, that
is correct.
Don't we know for a fact that apr_off_t >= apr_size_t on all
platforms,
today?
Do we have 32 bit platforms without LFS?
Why are we asking these questions? If we need to ask or
ensure something, that is what configure is there for :) :)
