4GB is not very large in general - I could easily see a game's data pack be
larger than that. Also videos are often more than 4GB. But chances are when
compiling for 32-bit there could be some other limit so you would not be
able to work with such sizes anyway - however I just don't understand why
the Allegro API does have to expose that with a weird type like off_t which
changes size depending on the platform. Maybe I'll do a sed -i -e
's/off_t/int64_t/g' and create a pull request if nobody disagrees - but I
don't know the original reason for off_t so maybe there is a good reason
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Edgar Reynaldo <
> Meant to send this to the mailing list. Sorry bout that.
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [AD] Allegro 22.214.171.124 + latest MinGW = off_t undefined
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:32:25 -0500
> From: Edgar Reynaldo <edgarreyna...@members.allegro.cc>
> To: Elias Pschernig <el...@pschernig.at> <el...@pschernig.at>
> On 10/9/2016 10:01 AM, Elias Pschernig wrote:
> Or maybe replace off_t with int64_t - the uses I can see seem very
> suspicious, and most likely currently Allegro 5 will break if it is ever
> compiled on a system where off_t is only 32 bit.
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:59 PM, SiegeLord <siegelor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sounds like the proper solution is to define _POSIX_C_SOURCE then,
>> perhaps guarded by a check for ALLEGRO_GCC.
> All of these errors have been fixed by patches issued by Keith Marshall of
> MinGW, as detailed here :
> So as far as I can see, Allegro 5 programs now properly compile with the
> C++11 standard in use.
> Do we really need to replace off_t with int64_t though? I mean better safe
> than sorry, but are we really ever going to deal with file system entries
> larger than 4GB? Where does the issue with using off_t on 64 bit systems
> come in? If we needed file system offsets I would agree that int64_t would
> be better, but I don't see any of that in use at the moment.
> Allegro-developers mailing list
Allegro-developers mailing list