On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 16:48, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum.wri...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 16:15, <hwri...@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
