William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 12:21 PM 10/1/2004, Greg Marr wrote:
#ifdef DWORD_MAX
#define APR_DWORD_MAX DWORD_MAX
#else
#define APR_DWORD_MAX 0xUL
#endif
Defining DWORD_MAX at all could cause problems if it was defined by a later header file.
++1, this is the right solution, and infini
At 12:21 PM 10/1/2004, Greg Marr wrote:
>#ifdef DWORD_MAX
>#define APR_DWORD_MAX DWORD_MAX
>#else
>#define APR_DWORD_MAX 0xUL
>#endif
>
>Defining DWORD_MAX at all could cause problems if it was defined by a later
>header file.
++1, this is the right solution, and infinitely more legible.
At 01:06 PM 10/1/2004, Jean-Jacques Clar wrote:
>>> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/28/04 5:10 PM >>>
>#ifdef DWORD_MAX
>#define APR_DWORD_MAX DWORD_MAX
>#else
>#define DWORD_MAX 4294967295UL
>#endif
What about:
#ifndef DWORD_MAX
#define DWORD_MAX 4294967295UL/* 2^32*/
#endif
#de
>>> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/28/04 5:10 PM >>>
>#ifdef DWORD_MAX>#define APR_DWORD_MAX DWORD_MAX>#else>#define DWORD_MAX 4294967295UL>#endifWhat about:
#ifndef DWORD_MAX#define DWORD_MAX 4294967295UL /* 2^32*/#endif
#define APR_DWORD_MAX DWORD_MAX
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
#ifdef DWORD_MAX
#define APR_DWORD_MAX DWORD_MAX
#else
#define DWORD_MAX 4294967295UL
#endif
it seems we forgot to correctly sign this constant
Definitely should use correct sign, but since
Windows DWORD_MAX is not defined as UL I'm inclined
to just ignore DWORD_MAX, but
At 06:50 PM 9/28/2004, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 28 Sep 2004 16:16:17 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> -#define DWORD_MAX 4294967295
> +#define APR_DWORD_MAX 4294967295
or
#define APR_DWORD_MAX (DWORD_MAX)
since this is a platform which defines it?
Well, in VC++ 7.1, cfgmg
At 05:50 PM 9/28/2004, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> -#define DWORD_MAX 4294967295
>> +#define APR_DWORD_MAX 4294967295
>
>or
>
>#define APR_DWORD_MAX (DWORD_MAX)
>
>since this is a platform which defines it?
or...
#ifdef DWORD_MAX
#define APR_DWORD_MAX DWORD_MAX
#else
#define DWORD_MAX 4294967295UL
On 28 Sep 2004 16:16:17 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> clar2004/09/28 09:16:17
>
> Modified:file_io/win32 readwrite.c
>include apr.hnw apr.hw
>network_io/win32 sendrecv.c
> Log:
> replaced define for DWORD_MAX with APR_DWORD
At 01:21 PM 9/22/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- ap_regkey.c 9 Feb 2004 20:40:49 - 1.11
> +++ ap_regkey.c 22 Sep 2004 18:21:29 - 1.12
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@
>*/
> LONG rc;
> DWORD type;
> -DWORD size = 0;
> +apr_size_t size = 0;
>
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:30 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On a slightly more interesting note, I committed something to APR HEAD
a few days ago and was faced with the question "darn, under what APR
release number do I put the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:30 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On a slightly more interesting note, I committed something to APR HEAD
a few days ago and was faced with the question "darn, under what APR
release number do I put the CHANGES entry?"... I
--On Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:30 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On a slightly more interesting note, I committed something to APR HEAD
a few days ago and was faced with the question "darn, under what APR
release number do I put the CHANGES entry?"... I put it under 1.0,
and if
On 22 Jul 2004 01:48:35 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> stoddard2004/07/21 18:48:35
>
> Modified:.CHANGES
===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/CHANGES,v
> retrieving revision 1.483
> retrieving
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrowe 2002/07/14 23:34:33
>
> Modified:network_io/win32 sendrecv.c
> Log:
> The last transpostion of ->timeout into apr_time fixed a bug
> identified
> by TANAKA Koichi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, where we used our
old ms
>
> stoddard01/07/01 08:13:35
>
> Modified:network_io/win32 sendrecv.c
> Log:
> Back out this portion of Bill Rowe's large file support patch. We should
> not
> use the event handle in the apr_file_t to do overlapped i/o on a socket. We
> either need to wait for io completion on
On 1 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> stoddard01/07/01 08:13:35
>
> Modified:network_io/win32 sendrecv.c
> Log:
> Back out this portion of Bill Rowe's large file support patch. We
> should not use the event handle in the apr_file_t to do overlapped
> i/o on a socket. We eithe
16 matches
Mail list logo
