From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 16 19:12:03 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA28037 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 19:12:03 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA28028 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 19:12:00 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA14060; Fri, 16 Jun 95 20:05:04 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9506170205.AA14060@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: penalty of using off_t for arithmatic with gcc's long To: ache@astral.msk.su (=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= aka) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 20:05:03 MDT Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, peter@haywire.DIALix.COM In-Reply-To: from "=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= aka" at Jun 17, 95 05:11:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > 1) I say nothing here about atomic off_t, I say about "long" type > of fseek argument, you can see it in any POSIX docs copy. I don't see explicitly definition of off_t as long in my stuff. > 2) In my POSIX specs (maybe I look at wrong place?) I don't read > that off_t must be atomic, it says "integral". You're quite right. "integral", not "atomic". As to the patches: I was under the impression that you had used longs everywhere, and not done the off_t casting you report. So never mind, they're probably correct (if not clean for file offsets above 2G). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.