RE: RE: FU: size of size_t

2017-10-12 Thread leo_tck
theo wrote: > > Time to begin buffing the 'd' key. Learning never ends, does it? --schaafuit.

Re: RE: FU: size of size_t

2017-10-12 Thread Theo de Raadt
> theo wrote: > > > > off_t is used where it should be used. size_t is used where it should > > be used. > > In that case I change the proposal to the introduction of an uoff_t, or > is there already something appropriate? If so, why doesn't dd(1) use it? > > > You are showing inexperience. > >

RE: FU: size of size_t

2017-10-12 Thread leo_tck
theo wrote: > > off_t is used where it should be used. size_t is used where it should > be used. In that case I change the proposal to the introduction of an uoff_t, or is there already something appropriate? If so, why doesn't dd(1) use it? > You are showing inexperience. Yes, you got that exac

Re: FU: size of size_t

2017-10-12 Thread Theo de Raadt
> I wrote: > > I'd suggest, given modern file sizes, that we bump it to 64 bits on all > > platforms. > > Oh, and off_t *is* 64 bits, at least on i386; pity most routines don't > use it: they use size_t. off_t is used where it should be used. size_t is used where it should be used. You are show