On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 16:48, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum.wright_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 16:15, <hwright_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: hwright
>>> Date: Thu Apr 5 20:15:41 2012
>>> New Revision: 1310047
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1310047&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> * subversion/libsvn_ra/compat.c
>>> (prev_log_path): Another integer-width mismatch fix.
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra/compat.c
>>>
>>> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra/compat.c
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra/compat.c?rev=1310047&r1=1310046&r2=1310047&view=diff
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra/compat.c (original)
>>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra/compat.c Thu Apr 5 20:15:41 2012
>>> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ prev_log_path(const char **prev_path_p,
>>> svn_sort__item_t item = APR_ARRAY_IDX(paths,
>>> i - 1, svn_sort__item_t);
>>> const char *ch_path = item.key;
>>> - int len = strlen(ch_path);
>>> + size_t len = strlen(ch_path);
>>
>> size_t or should this be apr_size_t?
>
> You ask this question *every time* one of these changes is made. :P
>
> And the response usually is "apr_size_t is a typedef of size_t on
> every platform we support, and we already use a mix of the two
> throughout our code".
I count about 100 size_t usages, and over 1200 apr_size_t. I think the
vote is for the latter :-P
Personally, I don't care much either way except for consistency. And
so when I see a bare size_t, then I ask. I think the tendency should
be for apr_size_t unless there is some specific reason otherwise.
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2012-04-05 23:43:54 CEST