Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> > James Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > One problem: the specs allow MAX_INT to be defined with a *MUCH* lower
> > > value than this - 32767 or thereabouts? At which point, you could
> > > theoretically be hitting the limit quite frequently...
> >
> > This comment implies that Apache is able to run on a 16-bit machine.
> > Is that really correct? Or, is running on a 16-bit machine something
> > we would accept patches for? (seems unlikely)
> >
>
> ANSI specified that INT_MAX must be at least 32767, although larger
> values are OK. UINT_MAX "doubles" that. I'm guessing we could
> find the integer type at configure time that is large enough for
> our needs and typedef it...
Maybe my point wasn't taken. Rephrased more simply.
INT_MAX still has to be the largest value that can be stored in a
signed int, so
on a 16-bit machine, INT_MAX will be 32767
on a 32-bit machine, INT_MAX will be 2billion or so
Therefore, bringing "32767" into the discussion means bringing
Apache-on-16-bit into the discussion.
I seriously doubt we would want to hack up Apache *and* APR *and*
expat *and* PCRE *and* whatever else to work on a 16-bit machine. I
seriously doubt that any publically released version of Apache has
ever worked on a 16-bit machine.
So let's put the "32767" part of the discussion to rest.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
