delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) |
Message-Id: | <10206142111.AA17751@clio.rice.edu> |
Subject: | Re: DJGPP and the Large File Summit (LFS) |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:11:43 -0500 (CDT) |
In-Reply-To: | <3D0A28A4.3329742C@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Jun 14, 2002 06:32:20 PM |
X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.5 PL2] |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> I've just started working on getting Large File Summit (LFS) support in DJGPP. > Basically this is a way of supporting files which exceed the number of bytes > representable by a positive signed 32b integer, i.e.: 2GB - 1B. LFS has been > integrated into the new POSIX standard. Can you have files > 4Gb with the extended DOS APIs? One thing I've always thought is that lseek and llseek should be the same code, either with a compile define or a common stub routine. We also have many places in the libc which do seeks via int calls instead of calling a common low level seek. There is at least one other routine I've seen that was essentially a clone of another routine (and should be fixed, but I can't remember right now). In general I think doing things to make the code more standard with other platforms is always a good idea...
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |