Re: FWD: Re: 64-bit sparc instructions

[nce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi,

Excuse me if I missed any of this discussion, I wasn't on the -workers
list until just now.

Andrej Borsenkow wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> 
> > If so, can you identify a configure test we can use to decide when to
> > use LFS64_CFLAGS instead of LFS_CFLAGS ?  (The existing test is in the
> > definition of zsh_LARGE_FILE_SUPPORT in aczsh.m4.)
> 
> Hmm ... they both have very different semantic. LFS means, use existing
> interfaces but assume some parameters are 64 bit (off_t, size_t, ino_t to
> name some).
> 
> LFS64 means - you are explicitly using special 64-bit version of these
> interfaces (open64 vs. open, stat64 vs. stat etc) that are using special
> types (off64_t, ino64_t etc). Zsh is not designed to do it.

Of course you're absolutely right about the above.

> So, if the above change really helped, it was just because zsh was
> actually compiled in 32-bit mode :-) We simply need better detection if
> LFS really works. Could you provide testcase suitable for putting in
> configure?

I'd be willing to help with this if no one has a solution yet.

-- 
Paul Ackersviller