Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > I recommend defining your own equivalents to off_t & ino_t (if needed) > which are *always* 64 bits wide. Only your library implementation > uses the system off_t & ino_t definitions and they are not used in > your public library headers. This way your library has a consistent > interface and the dependent application can use it regardless of > whether or not it is built to support large files. Well, that doesn't work that well if you are writing a C++ POSIX binding and don't want to duplicate those data structures. But I see you point. Maybe I should make the affected functions artificially templated, this would get things right.
