Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- From: Joe Wright <joewwright@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:55:18 -0500
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
Richard Tobin wrote:You presume the first expression (4) will be evaluated before the last (1024). Why?In article <5truv2F1f3un6U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Casting the expression won't help, if it's already overflowed as anlseek64(fd, 4*1024*1024*1024, SEEK_SET) // integer overflowOthers already explained what is happening, but I'd suggest another
approach that works without C99's long long type simply cast the
expression to off_t, which will automatically be the correct 64 bit type,
regardless of whether you use C89 or C99.
int.
Argh, well caught. Casting the first constant in above expression does the
job though.
Uli
--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- From: jameskuyper
- Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- References:
- Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- From: Ulrich Eckhardt
- Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- From: Richard Tobin
- Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- From: Ulrich Eckhardt
- Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- Prev by Date: Table based programming.
- Next by Date: Re: Table based programming.
- Previous by thread: Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- Next by thread: Re: Cannot compile with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|