struct stat

[David A. Greene]

Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> 
> > Yes, that's the ideal solution.  But what about all those people
> > (most of them, actually), who don't want to go near the sources for
> > their compiler?  IMHO, there should be some way to define dev_t for
> > those compilers that don't support long long.
> 
> Well, there is now. The way dev_t is defined if the compiler doesn't
> support 'long long' is certainly 'some way'. Of course, on a broken
> compiler, you can't expect to compile al 'legal' programs. For
> example, programs that compare two dev_t values cannot be compiled.

Why do you keep saying the compiler is broken?  In C, comparison
of two structs is illegal.  It is glibc that is broken in this case,
because it does not support operations on st_dev that should be
allowed.

> This is the fault of the compiler, however. There is nothing glibc can
> do for you (*).

Wow.  Amazing.  I'm speachless.

                                        -Dave