On 05/19/2010 07:02 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
I would say that if we can't find a system which doesn't support the standard %lld for 64-bit numbers then we should just go with the standard. It is simpler and it will only be more right as time passes because it is the standard.
Fair enough. Makes sense since we are not supporting such waste majority of platforms and compilers like APR. However how about const numeric macros (123UL and 123ULL for example) Are they safe enough for using them both with uint64_t and inku64? And I suppose we'll have to cast the ink_off_t to ink64 all the times. There's also a pid_t format error problem, but I suppose we don't use that so widely. What about ssize_t and size_t? This can be either %d, %ld and %u or %lu AFAICT Regards -- ^TM
