Matti Aarnio wrote:
>
> We had this 64-bits-or-not discussion with Ulrich back when 2.1 was
> imminent, and he was utterly convinced that it is good to save space
> at various LFS related structure fields. Now that is coming to haunt
> us... (I distinctly recall of him mentioning of receiving "authoritative
> advice" that 32 bits will be enough for inode numbers.)
>
> Also, I am sad to say, latter Linus thought that having inferior kernel
> ABI in form of inadequate struct stat64 of glibc 2.1+ was better to
> support at kernel stat64(), than something with adequate field sizes
> but userspace support being somewhat harder to make.
>
> The more I am following this disaster called ABI evolution, the more
> I am convinced that IBM did indeed do something right at the switch
> from AIX 3.x to AIX 4.x -- ALL SCALAR INTEGERS AT AIX 4.x ABIs ARE 64 BIT !
>
I could definitely agree with this. time_t needs to go 64 bits too,
although we have a little more time for that...
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
