"Daniel Shahaf" <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:08 PM, "Martin Buck" > <mb-tmp-fhoirefvba.ncnpur....@gromit.dyndns.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:32:39PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> > Why isn't apr_off_t 64 bits? >> >> Sorry, I meant apr_size_t and that seems to correspond to C89's size_t and >> is not supposed to be used for file sizes. apr_off_t is 64 bits, of course. >> >> > > --- subversion-1.7.1/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c.orig >> > > 2011-10-19 19:28:55.000000000 +0200 >> > > +++ subversion-1.7.1/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c 2011-11-25 >> > > 16:53:56.000000000 +0100 >> > > @@ -2575,7 +2575,7 @@ >> > > >> > > svn_revnum_t base_revision; >> > > apr_off_t base_offset; >> > > - apr_size_t base_length; >> > > + svn_filesize_t base_length; >> > >> > I'd like both BASE_OFFSET and BASE_LENGTH to be 64 bit types. Would it >> > work to make them both svn_filesize_t? >> >> I guess it would work (on a 32 bit machine, svn_filesize_t and apr_off_t are >> both typedefed to "long long int" anyway), but I wanted to make the types >> the same as those of "offset" and "size" in >> libsvn_fs_fs/fs.h:representation_t where the values ultimately get assigned >> to. >> >> But since this is the first time I've looked at the Subversion sources, I >> can't really recommend anything (besides making sure that base_length is 64 >> bits). >> > > Okay. Since both svn_filesize_t and apr_off_t are signed 64bits it may > be just a bikeshed which type to use for which struct member. I'll > commit your patch and nominate it for backport to 1.7.3. While at it I'll > also scan the code for similar problems.
Are you still planning to commit this? Should someone else do it? -- Philip
