Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199710121408.KAA24777@delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971012143341.8447b-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:36:35 +0200 (IST))
Subject: Re: Should off_t become unsigned?
Precedence: bulk


> Since FAT32 drives are here and reportedly are even supported in plain
> DOS, maybe v2.02 should make off_t to be unsigned?  (Some of the library
> functions will need to be fixed as well, but that's another problem; I
> hope to be able to do that, with some help from a guy who has FAT32 drive
> on his machine). 
> 
> Are there any adverse effects of making off_t unsigned?

POSIX.1 specifically states that "pid_t, ssize_t, and off_t shall be
signed arithmetic types".