"Brian F. Feldman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anyone who is specifically checking for long long
C9X-compliancy in the source tree (mainly libc)?
I started reviewing libc for C9X features in general -- a fair amount
of work is required to update macros and typedefs in inttypes.h
(plus the
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Tony Finch wrote:
"Brian F. Feldman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anyone who is specifically checking for long long
C9X-compliancy in the source tree (mainly libc)?
I started reviewing libc for C9X features in general -- a fair amount
of work is required to
Brian F. Feldman gr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Is there anyone who is specifically checking for long long
C9X-compliancy in the source tree (mainly libc)?
I started reviewing libc for C9X features in general -- a fair amount
of work is required to update macros and typedefs in inttypes.h
(plus the
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Tony Finch wrote:
Brian F. Feldman gr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Is there anyone who is specifically checking for long long
C9X-compliancy in the source tree (mainly libc)?
I started reviewing libc for C9X features in general -- a fair amount
of work is required to update
"Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
} necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensib
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:38:48PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
"Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: Sorry, kinda used to quad rather than long long. I'm pretty sure ll
: isn't yet supported by the kernel printf functions...
You may be right about that.
The simple solution to this, which I'd
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
Why not off_t, which should be portable and scale properly with the
maximum system file size. Then the only problem is figuring a portable
means of printing the result ...
sizeof() perhaps?
- alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9908070138180.9444-100...@janus.syracuse.net Brian
F. Feldman writes:
: You can always use off_t with %qd, (int64_t)foo.
But that isn't portbale. %qd is a bsdism. %lld and %llu are the
latest C standards way to say that.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9908070138180.9444-100...@janus.syracuse.net
Brian F. Feldman writes:
: You can always use off_t with %qd, (int64_t)foo.
But that isn't portbale. %qd is a bsdism. %lld and %llu are the
latest C standards way to say that.
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9908070248001.11809-100...@janus.syracuse.net Brian
F. Feldman writes:
: Sorry, kinda used to quad rather than long long. I'm pretty sure ll
: isn't yet supported by the kernel printf functions...
You may be right about that.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9908070138180.9444-100...@janus.syracuse.net
Brian F. Feldman writes:
: You can always use off_t with %qd, (int64_t)foo.
But that isn't portbale. %qd is a bsdism. %lld and %llu are the
latest C standards way to say that.
If you're that fixed on portability,
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
} necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:38:48PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead
In article
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/199908070635.aaa07...@harmony.village.org you
write:
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9908070138180.9444-100...@janus.syracuse.net Brian
F. Feldman writes:
: You can always use off_t with %qd, (int64_t)foo.
But that isn't portbale. %qd is a bsdism. %lld and %llu
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:38:48PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9908070248001.11809-100...@janus.syracuse.net
Brian F. Feldman writes:
: Sorry, kinda used to quad rather than long long. I'm pretty sure ll
: isn't yet supported by the kernel printf functions...
You may be right about that.
In article 19990807165202.a37...@cicely8.cicely.de,
Bernd Walter ti...@cicely.de wrote:
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:38:48PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
But not on the Alpha... int64_t is a long there, and gcc complains unless
you use %ld.
Mmm and long is 32Bit it seems.
No, longs are 64
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, John Polstra wrote:
In article 19990807165202.a37...@cicely8.cicely.de,
Bernd Walter ti...@cicely.de wrote:
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:38:48PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
But not on the Alpha... int64_t is a long there, and gcc complains unless
you use %ld.
Mmm
Hi folks,
I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
more than 4GB of data.
The changes made to NetBSD to support this are conditional on NO_QUAD
being undefined. Do I need to worry about this?
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 15:29:25 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
more than 4GB of data.
Yes yes, before you jump on my head, I meant u_quad_t. :-)
Ciao,
--Original Message-
From: Sheldon Hearn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 8:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: quad_t and portability
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 15:29:25 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
} necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
} more than 4GB of data.
Why not off_t, which should
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
} necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
} more than
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
Why not off_t, which should be portable and scale properly with the
maximum system file size. Then the only problem is figuring a portable
means of printing the result ...
sizeof() perhaps?
- alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: You can always use off_t with "%qd", (int64_t)foo.
But that isn't portbale. %qd is a bsdism. %lld and %llu are the
latest C standards way to say that.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: You can always use off_t with "%qd", (int64_t)foo.
But that isn't portbale. %qd is a bsdism. %lld and %llu are the
latest C standards way to say that.
Sorry, kinda used to quad rather than
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: Sorry, kinda used to quad rather than long long. I'm pretty sure ll
: isn't yet supported by the kernel printf functions...
You may be right about that.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: You can always use off_t with "%qd", (int64_t)foo.
But that isn't portbale. %qd is a bsdism. %lld and %llu are the
latest C standards way to say that.
If you're that fixed on portability, "%lux%08ulx", (long)foo32,
(long)foo
Hi folks,
I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
more than 4GB of data.
The changes made to NetBSD to support this are conditional on NO_QUAD
being undefined. Do I need to worry about this?
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 15:29:25 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
more than 4GB of data.
Yes yes, before you jump on my head, I meant u_quad_t. :-)
Ciao,
Message-
From: Sheldon Hearn [SMTP:sheld...@uunet.co.za]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 8:34 AM
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: quad_t and portability
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 15:29:25 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
} necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
} more than 4GB of data.
Why not off_t, which should
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of u_long. This is
} necessary if wc(1) is to produce sensible results for files containing
} more than
35 matches
Mail list logo
