"Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> And I agree, 64-bit time_t's should automatically presume that large
> file offsets are *also* in use.
>
> I don't think 64-bit time_t's make any of the caveats for large file
> offsets worse. I.e. I think the same NOTES would apply to both cases.
The "Large File Summit" in 1995 was needed because the POSIX and the C standard
at that time did not allow to have "fundamental system types" be greater than
a long. The "Large File Summit" unfortunately did not include time_t.
Since December 2001 with POSIX.1-2001, it is no longer forbidden to have e.g.
time_t that is bigger than a long. For now, even the default compile mode in
theory could use a 64 bit time_t.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
