Davi Arnaut wrote: > Bojan Smojver wrote: >> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 09:38 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: >> >>> testlfs : Line 265: Large Files not supported >> Or is this just a misleading message saying "these things are enabled by >> default on this platform"? >> > > Good question. LFS doesn't exist for 64 bit platforms, but because it > supports large files out of the box. This leads to another question, > should APR_HAS_LARGE_FILES be defined on 64-bit systems? It seems > reasonably safe to do so.
I've always understood HAS_LARGE_FILES to mean that offsets don't fit into a size_t alignment, they are larger offsets than are otherwise represented in memory. The thought that apr_off_t > off_t might also fit that bill. But no, we should probably figure out how to report this case more intellegently in testlfs so people don't panic. LARGE_FILES, imho, should not be set where special handling of the file offsets didn't happen.
