key64_t? ino64_t?

[Charles Wilson]

>On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:36:44AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> What do you think of the attached patch?  (The comments explain my
>> rationale).
>
>Except that you mistyped my name,

Sorry, I know better.  Blame clumsy fingers.

> the idea is fine.  We should remove
> the old implementation entirely.  I don't want to see the 
> __CYGWIN_USE_BIG_TYPES__ macro used in the Cygwin sources.  They should
> always be type clean and not behave differently dependent of the setting
> of __CYGWIN_USE_BIG_TYPES__.  Either we provide ftok and ftok64 or we
> just replace ftok.  Since ftok wasn't exported at all, I'm voting for
> just using the new implementation.

The new implementation alone is fine with me.  I did not expect this
patch to be accepted without modification, I just wanted to bootstrap the
discussion.  The patch is simply a place to start.

--Chuck
--
  Charles Wilson
  cygwin at removespam cwilson dot fastmail dot fm