Chuck Silvers <chuq@chuq.com> writes:

> so is "u_longlong_t" actually an ANSI-specified type?
> if not, we should remove the comment that says that it is.
> if it's supposed to be defined as "unsigned long long",
> then we should change the header so that it is.

I concur.

> actually if this type isn't specified by any standard,
> it may be best to just remove it.

Of all recent systems I've seen only Solaris defining it, so except
for cruft^H^H^H^H^Hbreakage in our own tree which we can fix, I'm all
for it.


- Klaus