Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 19:32:55 +:
> "Daniel Shahaf" writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:08 PM, "Martin Buck"
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:32:39PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> > Why isn't apr_off_t 64 bits?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I meant apr_size_
"Daniel Shahaf" writes:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:08 PM, "Martin Buck"
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:32:39PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > Why isn't apr_off_t 64 bits?
>>
>> Sorry, I meant apr_size_t and that seems to correspond to C89's size_t and
>> is not supposed to be
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 17:26:36 +0200:
> I'll commit your patch and nominate it for backport to 1.7.3. While
> at it I'll also scan the code for similar problems.
(Haven't got to it yet, but still planning to...)
On 29.11.2011 16:21, Philip Martin wrote:
> Martin Buck writes:
>
>> --- subversion-1.7.1/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c.orig2011-10-19
>> 19:28:55.0 +0200
>> +++ subversion-1.7.1/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c 2011-11-25
>> 16:53:56.0 +0100
>> @@ -2575,7 +2575,7 @@
>>
>>
On 29.11.2011 16:26, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Okay. Since both svn_filesize_t and apr_off_t are signed 64bits it may
> be just a bikeshed which type to use for which struct member.
It's not a bikeshed. It's a question of semantics. What does the
variable mean?
If it were a bikeshed, you wouldn't ne
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:08 PM, "Martin Buck"
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:32:39PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Why isn't apr_off_t 64 bits?
>
> Sorry, I meant apr_size_t and that seems to correspond to C89's size_t and
> is not supposed to be used for file sizes. apr_off_t is 6
Martin Buck writes:
> --- subversion-1.7.1/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c.orig 2011-10-19
> 19:28:55.0 +0200
> +++ subversion-1.7.1/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c 2011-11-25
> 16:53:56.0 +0100
> @@ -2575,7 +2575,7 @@
>
>svn_revnum_t base_revision;
>apr_off_t bas
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:32:39PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Why isn't apr_off_t 64 bits?
Sorry, I meant apr_size_t and that seems to correspond to C89's size_t and
is not supposed to be used for file sizes. apr_off_t is 64 bits, of course.
> > --- subversion-1.7.1/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_
On 29.11.2011 15:32, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:47 PM, "Martin Buck"
> wrote:
>> The problem is that subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c:read_rep_line()
>> correctly parses the size of the base revision for r2 as a 64 bit number,
>> but then stores it in an apr_off_t which
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:47 PM, "Martin Buck"
wrote:
> The problem is that subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c:read_rep_line()
> correctly parses the size of the base revision for r2 as a 64 bit number,
> but then stores it in an apr_off_t which is 32 bits on my machine.
>
Why isn't apr_off_
Hi,
recently, I tried to commit 2 versions of a huge file (6-7 GB) to a
Subversion repository. Both commits worked fine, but after the second one, I
could no longer access the repository with the standard svn client. Running
"svnadmin verify" on the repository resulted in the same error message I
11 matches
Mail list logo
