cURL / Mailing Lists / curl-library / Single Mail



From: Yang Tse <>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:39:46 +0200

2008/8/20, Daniel Stenberg wrote:

> > sizeof(off_t) before and after AC_SYS_LARGEFILE perhaps ?
> Ah that's a good idea, and then compare it with the size found after the
> macro.

Since we already have CURL_SIZEOF_CURL_OFF_T in use for the size of
curl_off_t. Would it be all right to use CURL_SIZEOF_SYST_OFF_T for
the size of off_t or would it be preferable to just use

Things might start getting quite confusing. Specially because we still
have CURL_FORMAT_OFF_T around for backwards compatibility reasons,
which is actually used for the format of curl_off_t. Eeek!

And we have another issue to think or comment about...

The CURL_SIZEOF_SYST_OFF_T definition placed by configure in the
generated curlbuild.h is certainly going to help library users which
can run configure, or someone has run configure for them, to detect at
compile time if they are properly using the library or not.


For non-configure systems, the ones which will actually be using the
renamed curlbuild.h.dist the check is ineffective due to the fact that
curlbuild.h.dist has to make the proper definitions no matter which
data model is used and no matter if LFS is enabled or not.

IOW, for non-configure systems the runtime check at library
initialization, that Dan Fandrich suggested some time ago, is
additionally required if we want to certainly make sure that no app is
misusing the library. At least the sizes of long and off_t should
probably be verified.

Received on 2008-08-21