From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Aug  6  6:30:43 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C98415295
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri,  6 Aug 1999 06:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 11Ck3p-0000ET-00
	for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 06 Aug 1999 15:29:25 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: quad_t and portability
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 15:29:25 +0200
Message-ID: <896.933946165@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


Hi folks,

I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
more than 4GB of data.

The changes made to NetBSD to support this are conditional on NO_QUAD
being undefined. Do I need to worry about this? Is it likely that
FreeBSD will be compiled for a platform that that doesn't offer quad_t?

My feeling is that the conditionalization should be left out until then.

Ciao,
Sheldon.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message