[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <add1e27e-e10c-e70d-ed5e-85bb0d4d4101@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 11:21:39 -0700
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
libc-coord@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: regression in man pages for interfaces using loff_t
On 2023-06-28 10:53, Rich Felker wrote:
> The whole reason loff_t exists is to avoid this problem and make a
> type that's "always full width offset, regardless of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS
> or _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE" to match with the kernel expectation for these
> interfaces.
Why can't off64_t be that type, as it is in glibc? I'm not seeing why we
need two names for the same type.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
