Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!wivax!cadmus!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!kendall@talcott.uucp From: kendall@talcott.uucp Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: massive type confusion [in 4.2bsd] Message-ID: <6554@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 10:45:44 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6554 Posted: Sun Dec 9 10:45:44 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 02:03:23 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 38 > Description: > These files use int where long is correct and fail to use > the types defined in. > Repeat-By: > Lint a type-correct program that calls lseek, time and ctime > and which passes lint on v7 (not 4.1BSD, not 2BSD). Observe > the utterly wrong and copious messages produced by lint. > Fix: > Edit llib-lc to use off_t instead of long where appropriate No, don't do it! This would make llib-lc incompatible with the manual pages. That's just as bad. llib-lc should look like the manual pages whenever possible. > Edit to use ino_t (instead of unsigned long) > and off_t where appropriate. Edit to typedef > off_t and time_t as long, *not int*. This is sufficient, no need to touch the lint library--but will it break anything? In obscure cases it can change the meaning of an expression, even on the VAX. > Use the types defined in in your programs! No, use the types on the manual pages. > Flame: > int is not long on all machines. I realise that the authors > of 4.2BSD are too lazy to write type-correct code, but they > could at least refrain from breaking existing, correct code > such as . I'm all agreement here (although I think the BSD people were under a lot of pressure to get 4.2 out the door). Even the SPECIFICATION of 4.2 is VAX-specific! Sam Kendall {allegra,ihnp4,ima,amd}!wjh12!kendall Delft Consulting Corp. decvax!genrad!wjh12!kendall