Re: libssh and Visual C++ (again)

[Christophe Baribaud <christophe.baribaud@xxxxxxxxx>]

Le 30/09/2012 12:01, Andreas Schneider a écrit :
> On Saturday 29 September 2012 14:13:48 Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Werner Koch <wk@xxxxxxxxx> [120927 14:11]:
> > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:58, christophe.baribaud@xxxxxxxxx said:
> > > > file, but is it a good practice to have an installed header file whose
> > > > content varies from an architecture to another?
> > > Yes, that is imho fine and much easier to maintain than fragile
> > > #ifdefs. Some libraries install a generic file and one system specific -
> > > which is a similar approach.
> > #ifdefs might be fragile, but non-generic header files are quite
> > fragile, too, and can have ugly side-effects with cross-compiling
> > and other cases. As long as there is a specific case like working
> > around some very unusual environment, just checking for that with
> > an ifdef can be quite a robust solution.
> ssize_t under unix with large file support is a uint64_t. I think if we
> replace the ssize_t in these two sftp function with uint64_t it will not be an
> API breakage on unix and probably not a ABI breakage too.
>
> A generated config.h as a public header is a no-go.
>
>
>
> 	-- andreas
I think you mean int64_t. The return value shall by a signed type. 
uint64_t is unsigned.

Replacing ssize_t by int32_t is an ABI breakage under 64 bits platforms
Replacing ssize_t by int64_t is an ABI breakage under 32 bits platforms

The definition of ssize_t is : the same bit count as size_t, but signed.

Christophe