using off_t in talloc

derrell at derrell at
Thu Jul 20 12:25:50 GMT 2006

"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze at> writes:

> Are there any platforms where the total RAM-size per
> process doesn't fit into size_t?
> If it always fits, I'll remove off_t from talloc

Bill Gates, I think it was, once said, "Why would anyone ever need more than
640K of memory?"

The question shouldn't be, "Are there any platforms..." but rather, "In the
next N years, might there be any platforms..." (where N is the foreseeable
years of lifetime of talloc).

It seems that others have decided that size_t is large enough for the
foreseeable future.  On Linux, malloc() takes a size_t, so using size_t in
talloc does seem reasonable.



More information about the samba-technical mailing list