Re: [squid-users] Downgrade from 3.0stable10 to 3.0stable9

[moved to squid-dev without cc to original poster]

On tis, 2008-11-18 at 23:25 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > On tis, 2008-11-18 at 21:14 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> >
> >> Do you have the same 64/32 bit settings and --with-large-files on both
> >> builds?
> >
> > Didn't we make the cache and swap.state format large-files independent
> > in Squid-3?
>
> Not 3.0 that I know of.

Checking..

StoreObject TLV data:
    uint64_t swap_file_sz;

StoreSwapLogData:
    uint64_t swap_file_sz;

No off_t references anywhere, so the on-disk format should be
large-files agnostic from what I can tell.

But it's very sensitive to 32/64-bit as pretty much everything then
changes, for example time_t changes..

> Certainly not different between stable9 and stable10.

Agreed.

> The only piece of s10 that touched the filesystem would have possibly
> reduced files being saved with negative lengths. Not added unreadable
> files anywhere.

?

Reading 3.0.STABLE10 diff... and not much wiser what this is about.

But this fragment won't work:

StoreIOBuffer(size_t aLength, int64_t anOffset, char *someData) :
+ if (aLength <0) {

size_t aLength is an unsigned quantity and can never be <0.

wonder why gcc doesn't warn on this.. maybe I have forgot that warning
flag again.. oh, right I don't have that warning option enabled for
Squid yet.. (part of -Wextra which is till a bit too noisy on our code,
no separate flag exists from what I can tell)

Regards
Henrik