On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:00:43AM +0200, Matti Aarnio wrote: > For some things even 64 bits are not enough I tend to think that time_t is an example. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.96) Ulrich Drepper
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.96) H. Peter Anvin
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.96) Ulrich Drepper
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.96) Matti Aarnio
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.... Paul Eggert
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.... Alexander Viro
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.... Alexander Viro
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.... Ulrich Drepper
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.... Andries Brouwer
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.... Geoff Keating
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.96) Mark Kettenis
- Re: 64-bit inode numbers (was: glibc 2.1.96) H. Peter Anvin
