> I prefer taking a "long long" and shifting it to a simple "long" pfn,
> simply because gcc is so horribly bad at dealing with "long long" (not
> entirely gcc's fault - it's hard to do a good job with two-register
> entities when the machine only has 6 usable registers for many things -
> but gcc does generate even worse code than it really should).
>
> That's what is going to happen to "page->offset" too - instead of
> extending the field to 64 bits and see gcc get a nervous breakdown (not to
> mention waste memory), the thing will just be a shifted value, giving a
> better dynamic range without the "long long" downsides.
Does that mean that we are going to get >2G file support on i386 in
2.4.X?
Pavel
-- I'm really pavel@ucw.cz. Look at http://195.113.31.123/~pavel. Pavel Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/