Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 10:28:06 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Message-Id: <3405-Sat03Nov2001102806+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.1.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3BE2EED1.117D70AD@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Fri, 02 Nov 2001 19:06:57 +0000)
Subject: Re: Patch to add st_blocks to struct stat
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000713092214 DOT 12595A-100000 AT is> <3BE2B26D DOT CA65166B AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <200111021735 DOT fA2HZFJ21434 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3BE2EED1 DOT 117D70AD AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 19:06:57 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> How would we indicate with DJGPP's version that binary compatibility has
> been broken?

In the docs, I guess.

> > *If* we decide to change the size of struct stat (I recommend
> > against), let's add a few dummy fields at the end, so that we can
> > "expand" it next time without changing its size.
> 
> Unix98 says that struct stat should contain st_blocks. This is the only
> member of struct stat that we are currently missing, according to Unix98.

The draft Posix standard also specifies st_blocks.  So I think we
want that, and, as Charles pointed out, 2.04 is already incompatible
because of changes in struct dirent.