From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 15 11:56:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556D914DFD for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:56:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA84374; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:56:47 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:56:47 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Bakul Shah Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bug in dd seeking beyond 2G Message-ID: <19990915135647.A84130@dan.emsphone.com> References: <199909151453.KAA17729@chai.torrentnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre1i In-Reply-To: <199909151453.KAA17729@chai.torrentnet.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In the last episode (Sep 15), Bakul Shah said: > PR bin/6509 (submitted in May 1998) already has a patch to fix this > but it was rejected because off_t was assumed by the bug > fixer/submitter to be a quat (int64_t). I can't even get an IDE disk > below 2G byte easily! And we are still years away from zettabyte > disks. So I don't see the point of blocking a _useful_ change that > *considerably* improves the situation just because it is not done the > `right way'. RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/bin/dd/dd.c,v revision 1.17 date: 1999/06/19 19:49:32; author: green; state: Exp; lines: +25 -21 Miscellaneous dd(1) changes: mainly fixing variable types (size_t, ssize_t, off_t, int, u_int64_t, etc.). dd(1) should now work properly with REALLY big amounts of data. Should be a -stable candidate by now (3 months of testing?) -- Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message