Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:52:56 +0100 | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Subject | Re: SCSI device numbering (was: Re: Ideas for v2.1 |
| |
Hi,
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 21:06:39 +0200, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl said:
> Eric Youngdale: > : .... Clearly a larger > : dev_t is needed, no matter how we do it. We need to somehow agree on how > : large this needs to be, and *then* we need to fix the filesystems so that > : they store a dev_t that is this large.
> Yes. I think we do not have very much choice: > POSIX requires dev_t to be an arithmetic type (so it cannot be a struct), > which on Intel limits us to 64 bits. > Since changing is slow and painful it seems a bad idea to go to 32 bits > and have to change again a few years later. > On the other hand, not many C compilers support long long, so a 64-bit > dev_t would limit us to gcc. I don't know whether that would be a > problem for anybody.
One word of warning --- this will break POSIX. "gcc -ansi -pedantic-errors" will not compile code with long long declarations. Any truly, strictly ANSI environment won't be able to compile programs referencing a 64-bit dev_t.
Cheers, Stephen. -- Stephen Tweedie <sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk> Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland.
|  |