[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 21:19:47 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
libc-coord@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: regression in man pages for interfaces using loff_t
* Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu> [2023-06-28 11:21:39 -0700]:
> On 2023-06-28 10:53, Rich Felker wrote:
> > The whole reason loff_t exists is to avoid this problem and make a
> > type that's "always full width offset, regardless of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS
> > or _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE" to match with the kernel expectation for these
> > interfaces.
>
> Why can't off64_t be that type, as it is in glibc? I'm not seeing why we
> need two names for the same type.
umm because off64_t is not a defined type?
https://godbolt.org/z/9sf6n8Y3e
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
