On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:41:11AM -0400, Martin Cracauer wrote: > Peter Van Eynde wrote on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:10:38PM +0200: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:52:40AM -0400, Martin Cracauer wrote: > > > > > > he code is screwup up in its handlign of errno. > > > > > > (unix:unix-open "/tmp/l" 0 0) > > > NIL > > > 27 > > > > > > errno 27 is "File too big". As long as we don't seek it should't > > > really matter whether we are in 64 or 32 bit mode, but it does. > > > > The direct syscall code uses the 32 bit open, as I thought that without a > > 64 bit type implementing seeks was going to be painful. > > Why? > > Normal C programs always use the 64 bit variant of open, as glibc maps > to it by default. The only reason why lseek is not mapped by default > as well is that it means an interface change. > > So that proves there is no problem with the 64 bits open and 32 bit > lseek, doesn't it (honest question)?
The C people find it acceptable that a 32 bit program can open (or even write) a larger then 2**32 file. They accept that if the program would ask for the present position in the file it will lose big time. I always thought that the lisp way of thinking was a little different. Groetjes, Peter -- It's logic Jim, but not as we know it. | [EMAIL PROTECTED] "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr| http://people.debian.org/~pvaneynd/ "God is more forgiving." - Dave Aronson| http://users.belgacom.net/pvaneynd/ -- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9sDA711ldN0tyliURAs9TAKDGHTuamhGcsIF+XuSyWahd1QoODACgxN2R +9SHkpw1Fs7T+uFoc7zfgO8= =7qg7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
