Re: BodyPipe size_t / uint64_t

On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 00:11 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On sön, 2007-09-30 at 15:43 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> > Should _all_ size_t uses in BodyPipe be replaced with uint64_t then?
>
> Anything that relates to the expected body content size to be
> transferred over the BodyPipe, but not buffer or passwed chunk sizes.

Understood.

BTW, why not make every size-related variable a signed or unsigned
int64_t? Is this a performance optimization issue?

Thanks,

Alex.
Received on Sun Sep 30 2007 - 16:22:54 MDT