Subject: Re: types gone amuck (Re: CVS commit: basesrc/bin/pax)
To: Chuck Silvers <>
From: Luke Mewburn <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/26/2001 11:09:11
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:26:09PM -0800, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> having the xdr_{,u_}longlong_t functions take an argument that is not a
> {,u_}longlong_t would be a bit odd.  so perhaps the best thing to do
> would just be to replace the comments about them being ANSI with
> something like:
> /*
>  * The types longlong_t and u_longlong_t exist for use with the
>  * Sun-derived XDR routines involving these types, and their usage
>  * in other contexts is discouraged.  Further note that these types
>  * may not be equivalent to "long long" and "unsigned long long",
>  * they are only guaranteed to be signed and unsigned 64-bit types
>  * respectively.  Portable programs that need 64-bit types should use
>  * the ANSI types int64_t and uint64_t instead.
>  */
> how does that sound?

having been bitten by this a *second* time (doh!), i think that your
suggestion is a great idea.