* Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2023-06-28 11:21:39 -0700]: > On 2023-06-28 10:53, Rich Felker wrote: > > The whole reason loff_t exists is to avoid this problem and make a > > type that's "always full width offset, regardless of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS > > or _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE" to match with the kernel expectation for these > > interfaces. > > Why can't off64_t be that type, as it is in glibc? I'm not seeing why we > need two names for the same type. umm because off64_t is not a defined type? https://godbolt.org/z/9sf6n8Y3e
