Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!206.109.2.48!bonkers!web.nmti.com!peter From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: Solaris 2.6 Date: 1 Dec 1996 17:57:44 GMT Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI Lines: 15 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <57sguo$n9o@web.nmti.com> References: <32986299.AC7@mail.esrin.esa.it> <casper.329abb76@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <57ej3a$7ij@panix2.panix.com> <casper.329ae8f2@mail.fwi.uva.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: sonic.nmti.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.solaris:91022 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1639 In article <casper.329ae8f2@mail.fwi.uva.nl>, Casper H.S. Dik <casper@fwi.uva.nl> wrote: > No, but code that uses "long" to calculate with off_t's will need to > be fixed; it won't compile or just gives a warning and an erronous > computation. So make long 64 bits wide. You're going to have to do it soon when you go to 64 bit pointers anyway, so why not jump the gun? (and yes, long should have been 64 bits on the original VAX UNIX, and having long 64 bits and char * 32 bit doesn't violate any standards, and portable code has to assume that long might be longer than char * anyway...) -- </peter>