From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19100 invoked from network); 23 May 2001 04:42:39 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 May 2001 04:42:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 10116 invoked by alias); 23 May 2001 04:42:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14447 Received: (qmail 10093 invoked from network); 23 May 2001 04:42:20 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1010523044128.ZM23100@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 04:41:28 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20010522200425.A9730@flora01.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> Comments: In reply to Paul Ackersviller "Re: vi editting troubles" (May 22, 8:04pm) References: <20010522200425.A9730@flora01.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Paul Ackersviller Subject: 64-bit sparc instructions Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 22, 8:04pm, Paul Ackersviller wrote: } } [...] What does make a difference is simply generating default 32-bit } sparc instructions. I'd negelected to mention that I was using Sun's } compiler and 64-bit code. I suppose it's fair to blame this one on Sun. Is that problem solved by the following? On May 22, 2:32pm, Clint Adams wrote: } Subject: Re: 4.0.1-pre-5 (solaris issues) } } > the 64-bit Forte compiler. Can you figure out what we need to be passing } > as a compiler argument that we aren't, or whatever? } } LFS64_CFLAGS: -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE } LFS_CFLAGS: -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 } } By replacing the latter with the former, the test [succeeds]. If so, can you identify a configure test we can use to decide when to use LFS64_CFLAGS instead of LFS_CFLAGS ? (The existing test is in the definition of zsh_LARGE_FILE_SUPPORT in aczsh.m4.) -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net