On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Tony Finch wrote:
> "Brian F. Feldman" 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
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 requi
"Brian F. Feldman" 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
(plus the new ).
Doing a thorough
"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
(plus the new )
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <19990807165202.a37...@cicely8.cicely.de>,
> Bernd Walter 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
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bernd Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 a
In article <19990807165202.a37...@cicely8.cicely.de>,
Bernd Walter 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 bits on
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bernd Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 bits on th
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message
> "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 like to see
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 fo
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
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, wh
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 f
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
In article
you
write:
>In message "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.
Still isn't portable. DEC Alphas use "%ld", and don't know about "%lld
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
>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.
Still isn't portable. DEC Alphas
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 us
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 u
"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 se
"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 s
> In message
> "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)foo>>32,
(long)foo is alwa
In message "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 majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message
> "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 long long. I
In message "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 majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the
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
w
> 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)foo>>32,
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 freebsd-
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 rathe
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 freebsd-
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
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
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
> } mor
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 be por
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 be po
> -Original 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:
&g
> -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
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,
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,
38 matches
Mail list logo
