From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200111182235.XAA21129@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: RESEND: Patch to computer st_blksize in struct stat
In-Reply-To:	<3BF82D64.84C50E28@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from Richard Dawe at "Nov 18, 2001 09:51:32 pm"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:35:04 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
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

> Index: include/sys/stat.h
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/djgpp/djgpp/include/sys/stat.h,v
> retrieving revision 1.4
> diff -p -u -3 -r1.4 stat.h
> --- include/sys/stat.h  2000/12/05 14:05:53     1.4
> +++ include/sys/stat.h  2001/11/18 21:46:42
> @@ -49,9 +49,9 @@ struct stat {
>    time_t       st_mtime;
>    nlink_t      st_nlink;
>    off_t                st_size;
> -  off_t                st_blksize;
> +  blksize_t    st_blksize;
>    uid_t                st_uid;
> -  dev_t                st_rdev; /* unused */
> +  dev_t                st_rdev;
>  };

If we are making incompitable changes to struct stat, perhaps we
should change "off_t st_size;" to "offset_t st_size;" or change
"typedef int off_t;" to "typedef long long off_t;" (and remove
offset_t)?

Or perhaps we should try to keep binary compatibily for 2.04 and wait
with incompatible change for the next release after that?


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -