On 06/25/12 19:49, Mehrdad wrote: > Shouldn't the length of a range should be a long? > > Otherwise there's no way we could possibly replace streams with ranges. > 32-bit systems have LOTS of common streams that are over 2^32 bytes (e.g. DVD > images, partition images, large movies, etc.). > > And not just that -- if we use size_t instead of long, bit arrays will only > have a maximum length of 512 MiB -- waay lower than what 32-bit systems can > handle. >
What makes you think 'length' should evaluate to a size_t? If it it's documented like that somewhere then that should be fixed. It should be unsigned though, so if you need a type wider than 32-bit size_t, use ulong etc. artur
