On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:29:50PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote: > In one of the other emails that I sent on the bucket/brigade stuff, I > explicitly stated that read() would return an apr_size_t. You simply cannot > return more than that.
Yes, I read that other email after I replied. =) But, we are in complete agreement here. > Like today, it would split itself, and return a portion. Exactly. > > I will take a pass at seeing how hard this would be to implement > > this weekend. -- justin > > "this" being the new types? Yes. > I'd recommend a first pass where you add the new types. We can then set the > types to apr_uint8 and do a full compile. Then set them to apr_uint64 and do > a full compile. And then mix/match them :-) Hehe. Sure. I expect that wrowe would also have to compile it on Win32 - I don't have access to that notoriously iffy compiler. =) > The warnings/errors discovered will tell us a bundle... It will tell us > where we're mixing them inappropriately, and where we're making assumptions > about certain sizes. Lots of places are casting to check for -1. We'll have to see how to handle all of those cases. It'd be goodness if we could have a defined way to check for unknown bucket lengths without the casting to "add" a sign. Thoughts? I expect this to take a bit to straighten out. I'm going to try to clear out my current patch queue first (mod_auth_db, ap_getline, etc.) and then turn my focus onto the bucket sizes. -- justin
