On 11/16/06, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Should it be on or off? IOW, should it mean that OS LFS support for
> 32-bit apps such as fstat64() is used, or should it mean that APR can
> handle large files?
There was some discussion of this when the LFS stuff was going in,
thread from msgid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I do think that the current definition is the probably the right one to
be exposing as part of the API at preprocessor level, since it may be
necessary to use at that level to be able to correctly interact with
other libraries. (mod_perl needs it like this, for example).
Using sizeof(apr_off_t) should be sufficient for most cases where you
need to determine simply "can APR handle file sizes > 2Gb" at compile
time.
Something for the preprocessor would be nice. sizeof() won't work and
_FILE_OFFSET_BITS seems ugly.
Index: testlfs.c
===================================================================
--- testlfs.c (revision 475714)
+++ testlfs.c (working copy)
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
{
ABTS_NOT_IMPL(tc, "Large Files tests require Sparse file support");
}
-#elif APR_HAS_LARGE_FILES
+#elif _FILE_OFFSET_BITS > 32
#define USE_LFS_TESTS
/* Tests which create an 8Gb sparse file and then check it can be used
-/-
another ugly test:
APR_HAS_LARGE_FILES || APR_SIZEOF_VOIDP > 4
I don't see anything cleaner for 1.2 though*.
*a new symbol in trunk is possible
