> On 25 Aug 2018, at 14:55, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Should this be changed or reverted? The discussion seems to have stalled.
Damn, did something half-baked get committed?
> And what about backport for 1.7.x and 1.6.x?
IMHO not for 1.6: keep changes really minimal. 1.7 would make sense.
--
Should this be changed or reverted? The discussion seems to have stalled.
And what about backport for 1.7.x and 1.6.x?
Regards,
Rainer
Am 24.07.2018 um 17:42 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
I'm concerned that you've made a specific assumption
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> I'm concerned that you've made a specific assumption of 2's compliment int.
> Nothing in the spec or real world assures us of this. Intel x86 is 2's
> compliment, but this is a bad assumption.
I doubt we support 1s complement archs but
I'm concerned that you've made a specific assumption of 2's compliment int.
Nothing in the spec or real world assures us of this. Intel x86 is 2's
compliment, but this is a bad assumption.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 17:33 Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:28 AM, wrote:
> >
> > @@
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:28 AM, wrote:
>
> @@ -387,18 +389,20 @@ APR_DECLARE(char *) apr_ltoa(apr_pool_t
> char *buf = apr_palloc(p, BUFFER_SIZE);
> char *start = buf + BUFFER_SIZE - 1;
> int negative;
> +unsigned int un;
unsigned long for ltoa?
> if (n < 0) {
>
