[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: svn commit: r22818 - trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/libsvn_swig_ruby

From: Madan U S <madan_at_collab.net>
Date: 2006-12-28 07:21:03 CET

> -----Original Message-----
> From: koutou@gmail.com on behalf of Kouhei Sutou
> Sent: Thu 12/28/2006 11:39 AM
> To: Madan U S
> Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r22818 - trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/libsvn_swig_ruby
>
> Hi,
>
> 2006/12/28, Madan U S <madan@collab.net>:

[snip]

> > > +#if SIZEOF_LONG_LONG == 8
> >
> > The current equivalent of this comparison is:
> > sizeof(apr_int64_t) == sizeof(long long)
> >
> > You have hardcoded 8 instead of apr_int64_t. Is this intentional? Why? If so, I think you should make a note of it in the log.
>
> apr_int64_t's size must be 64bits and 64bits is 8bytes.
> I think sizeof(apr_int64_t) == 8 is clear. Should I add a note?

I understand the correctness of the value, but isnt it better to maintain it as sizeof(apr_int64_t) instead. It would be more generic, and would still be applicable if (in a rare case) the definition of apr_int64_t changes.

But honestly, I dont know enough about this part of the code to comment that we *must not* hardcode this. So, its your pick.

Thanks for the immediate reply :)

Regards,
Madan.
Received on Thu Dec 28 07:25:08 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.