Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On 9/18/07, Lucian Adrian Grijincu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder if an APR_INO_T_FMT is needed and whether it can be added to
1.2.x or 0.9.x branches.
For whatever reason someone might want to print an apr_ino_t.
As I understand the versoining rules, this can't be added in neither
0.9 nor 1.2, but can make it in 1.3. Is there a need for such a
#define? If yes, I'll update the updated patch Joe sent to include
this too (only on trunk which I think is the 1.3 wannabe).
Yes - for 1.3 this would be fine, although doesn't upcasting the apr_ino_t
to a uint64_t solve this for everyone in a really portable manner?
Bill
