Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54674 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31058 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2011 09:16:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Aug 2011 09:16:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.42 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.83.42 mail-gw0-f42.google.com Received: from [74.125.83.42] ([74.125.83.42:39237] helo=mail-gw0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E4/20-29933-A68DC4E4 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 05:16:27 -0400 Received: by gwb17 with SMTP id 17so877527gwb.29 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:16:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=VCT6s1jLZ0tswsln19IT2bBlvlOTge+gp/GyNboKLtM=; b=JX+yOQ9JJLSzj9YckEgrrF2IdxJjIAPbCrPSGznzC1VMEjR/jTPFsGFwyDdQV/XZw9 WkJRsw5zCePEmka3ACCgS1/3MBWke/qoZ+kcRwU1xcHBAwkgzG02LfM0e9jKol/cRwMJ CNB0KQeHF3RL1myfCkxPLwngBiSXIuIMWEG84= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.146.195.11 with SMTP id s11mr510309yaf.10.1313658984314; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.41.9 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:16:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:16:24 +0200 Message-ID: To: Moriyoshi Koizumi , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: types conversion mistakes in cli's server From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) done in r315128 On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > Hi > > There are many loosely conversions in the CLI web server. Mostly from > (u)int64 to size_t (on 32bit platforms) or in64t to char, or the other > way 'round. > > What was the goal to support 64bit data range for content length (or > read data) in 32 bit environments? If LFS support was the goal, it > could be possible to make it server large files but the way it is now > won't work. > > Any objection if I change it to use exclusively size_t to avoid any > possible issues? > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org > -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org