From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 596 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2009 23:58:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 587 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Sep 2009 23:58:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:58:31 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Mnhuf-0007Ht-BP for cygwin@cygwin.com; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:58:21 +0200 Received: from rrcs-24-242-166-118.sw.biz.rr.com ([24.242.166.118]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:58:21 +0200 Received: from galley by rrcs-24-242-166-118.sw.biz.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:58:21 +0200 To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: gballey Subject: Re: lseek() returning Invalid Argument Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00332.txt.bz2 Eric Blake wrote: > gballey ace-co.com> writes: > >> Anyone got an idea of what is going on here? > > Yep. > > > Oh, you wanted to know what your bug is? > >> Thanks. >> >> /* begin test.c */ >> >> #include >> #include > > Oops - no #include . lseek takes 64-bit type arguments, but without > a declaration from the correct header, the compiler assumes it takes int > arguments. Try compiling with -Wall. > Yep, adding the header fixed it. I'm porting some apps that originated in Xenix years back, and that header wasn't included. I'm more accustomed to coding in languages with stronger type checking, and incorrectly assumed that when the compiler didn't complain, the types were OK. I appreciate your assistance. -Gordon -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple