Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:26:30 -0500
> > From: Michael McConville
> >
> > Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > It really is confusing to use off_t for something that's not a byte
> > > offset. If integer overflow really is an issue you care about, use
> > > "long long".
> >
> >
> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:26:30 -0500
> From: Michael McConville
>
> Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > It really is confusing to use off_t for something that's not a byte
> > offset. If integer overflow really is an issue you care about, use
> > "long long".
>
> ok for the below diff to update my grep
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> It really is confusing to use off_t for something that's not a byte
> offset. If integer overflow really is an issue you care about, use
> "long long".
ok for the below diff to update my grep change?
> Note that on many non-BSD systems off_t is still a 32-bit integer, at
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 13:00:49 -0500
> From: Michael McConville
>
> I thought I'd look for other examples after the grep fix.
>
> ok?
It really is confusing to use off_t for something that's not a byte
offset. If integer overflow really is an issue you care about, use
"long long".
Note that
I thought I'd look for other examples after the grep fix.
ok?
Index: csplit.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/csplit/csplit.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -p -r1.8 csplit.c
--- csplit.c11 Oct 2015 17:43:03 - 1.8
+++
