Re: svn_filesize_t (was Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date)

Greg Hudson wrote:

>I'm concerned about issue 639, actually. I don't remember any
>discussion of it on the list,
>
But there were such discussions.

> and it seems like a rather fundamental
>change. The issue says:
>
> "However, our sizes should not be related to the operating system
> limits. We should be targeting a 64-bit file size (and offsets into
> that)."
>
>But there is no justification for that statement. We have no problem
>with file formats, since we never use fixed fields in file formats
>(Berkeley DB might use fixed fields internally, but that's not under our
>control). apr_off_t doesn't appear in our svn_client or svn_wc API,
>
But it appears in svn_dirent_t in svn_types.h. Which means it appears
most everywhere that matters.

> and
>appears in the svn_fs API in exactly one place (svn_fs_file_length). So
>it seems like issue 639 is going to create a lot of code for no stated
>benefit.
>
>(Incidentally, on most 32-bit *BSD systems, off_t is 64 bits and size_t
>is 32 bits. Since some of the CollabNet people are FreeBSD users, I
>don't think any warnings on Windows are due to 64-bit off_t being
>unusual.)
>
>

The point of the fragment you quote is that our API and our schema
should remain the same, regardless of whether apr_off_t is 32- or 64- bit.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org