This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Finishing large file support?
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:43:43AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:47:59PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
> > >From searching the archives more, it looks to me like the major hold up
> > for this was newlib. But, it appears to me that newlib now has 64 bit
> > stdio support. How is this not sufficient?
> It will require some work, that's it. The goal was to switch to 64bit
> file access w/o having two sets of functions, e.g. fopen(), fopen64().
> Instead, Cygwin should switch to 64bit file access at one point while
> still being backward compatible. Old apps using the 32bit functions
> should still run while fresh compiled apps are using 64bit access
> automatically. This could be done by defining the stdio64 functions
> as default functions for new apps - an application calling fopen() will
> transparently call fopen64().
> However, there's a problem here with fork(). If a 32bit application
exec, that is.
> calls a 64bit app or vice versa, the stdio structure isn't quite the
> same. Well... something to investigate.
> If you really want to help, let's discuss how to proceed. I would be
> very glad to have somebody looking into this issue as well.
> Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin at cygwin dot com
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin at cygwin dot com
Red Hat, Inc.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html