--lHGcFxmlz1yfXmOs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 02:56:41AM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> > I think the change is fine.  However I'm wondering if it wouldn't be
> > better to somehow version the _ftsent structure.  I doubt that du
> > will be the only directory-walking application that will need to deal
> > with 64-bit values.
>=20
> That sounds plausible.  But I see no need to version FTSENT.  As long
> as the existing fields remain valid and at the same offsets, we can add
> all the new fields we like.  We can even publicize the new fields.
> After all, the interface does not include its clients ever allocating
> an FTSENT.

The problem I see is that the last field of _ftsent is the name, which is=
=20
variable length. So we can't readily add new fields w/o moving any other=20
fields.

Take care,

Bil

--lHGcFxmlz1yfXmOs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFEx7K4Wz+3JHUci9cRArCpAJ4x4wkApbZBrP37WGVGDVJ8CHRV3wCgg71C
/12NbNCdhf5IaGO1o2q26jE=
=3GY1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--lHGcFxmlz1yfXmOs--