what 64 mean in fopen64?
in [Unix Programming]
|
From: Medvedev on 1 Jul 2008 20:57 pls explain someone told me that it can manipulate files size 2^64 bytes does that mean that i can open a file size (2^64)/ 1024 / 1024 / 1024 GB = 1.7179e10 GB !!!!!!
From: David Schwartz on 1 Jul 2008 22:40 On Jul 1, 5:57 pm, Medvedev <3D.v.Wo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > pls explain > someone told me that it can manipulate files size 2^64 bytes > does that mean that i can open a file size (2^64)/ 1024 / 1024 / 1024 > GB > = 1.7179e10 GB !!!!!! The 'fopen64' call is used to open a file that will be manipulated using 64-bit offsets. As for whether you can actually open a file that large, probably not, since your OS and filesystem will impose other limitations. But the maximum offset size won't be the limiting factor. Note that offsets are signed (so you can do a relative seek to before the current offset), so it's actually only about 8 million TB. DS
From: viza on 2 Jul 2008 05:55 On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:57:36 -0700, Medvedev wrote: > pls explain > someone told me that it can manipulate files size 2^64 bytes does that > mean that i can open a file size (2^64)/ 1024 / 1024 / 1024 GB > = 1.7179e10 GB !!!!!! I have given a fairly complete reply to this in clc. Do *NOT* post the same article in different groups! Either here or comp.lang.c would have been able to answer this question*, but if you post to both separately then you risk making people waste time answering you when you have already been answered somewhere else. * but you might upset the topic police there
From: Jens Thoms Toerring on 2 Jul 2008 06:35 viza <tom.viza(a)gmil.com> wrote: > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:57:36 -0700, Medvedev wrote: > > pls explain > > someone told me that it can manipulate files size 2^64 bytes does that > > mean that i can open a file size (2^64)/ 1024 / 1024 / 1024 GB > > = 1.7179e10 GB !!!!!! > I have given a fairly complete reply to this in clc. > Do *NOT* post the same article in different groups! Either here or > comp.lang.c would have been able to answer this question*, but if you > post to both separately then you risk making people waste time answering > you when you have already been answered somewhere else. The OP has been redirected here to cup from clc (and rightly so), so he posted here again as he was asked to. What's wrong with that? To me it looks like common sense and considerate behaviour. Regards, Jens -- \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt(a)toerring.de \__________________________ http://toerring.de
From: viza on 2 Jul 2008 09:24
Hi On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:35:30 +0000, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: > viza <tom.viza(a)gmil.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:57:36 -0700, Medvedev wrote: > >> I have given a fairly complete reply to this in clc. > >> Do *NOT* post the same article in different groups! > > The OP has been redirected here to cup from clc (and rightly so), so he > posted here again as he was asked to. What's wrong with that? To me it > looks like common sense and considerate behaviour. Yes. Sorry Medvedev, Jens is right and you only posted here after seeing vippstar's reply in clc. You were just quicker in reposting than I was in replying to the first post that I saw, and so it looked to me like a multipost and I got on my high horse. viza |