* Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 08:38:02AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > At the very last, if we are "assuming" behavior which is specifically > > > implementation dependent, then a test during configure time that > > > ensures sizeof(void *) <= sizeof(long) makes sense. > > > > > There is no room, IMO, for silent hidden assumptions in httpd. > > > > How about; > > -0.5, benefit is nil. > > I don't think it's a good idea to clutter up configure with checks for > hypothetical platforms since the scope is unlimited and the build system > is fragile enough already.
Then let's write valid ANSI C plus POSIX. I don't see a benefit in writing fragile code as well. (In this particular example I don't see a valid reason to store boolean stuff in a pointer at all. This is just bad. But perhaps I'm overlooking something.) > We could go through this forever; "hey, will > httpd work if sizeof(char) != 1?" "hmm, doubt it, lets add a configure > check for that too" etc. Huh? The standard specifies that sizeof(char) is always 1. So that is the point to stop. Just my EUR 0.02, nd
