Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2023 15:36:52 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <>
To: Paul Eggert <>
Cc:, Rich Felker <>,,,
Subject: Re: Re: [musl] Re: regression in man pages for
 interfaces using loff_t

* Paul Eggert <> [2023-07-01 00:24:27 -0700]:
> On 2023-06-30 16:37, Rich Felker wrote:
> > This is still changing the documentated signature, which isn't really
> > nice, and would not be compatible with glibc unless glibc went out of
> > its way to hide those functions when _FILE_OFFSET_BITS is 32.
> I don't see any incompatibility with glibc and the changes I proposed. The
> changes merely weaken the spec in the man pages in an area where the spec
> should be weakened. glibc is compatible with the spec before it was changed
> to use off64_t, it's compatible with the spec now that it uses off64_t, and
> it would continue to be compatible with the spec if the proposed changes are
> adopted.

loff_t * can be incompatible with off64_t * as well as off_t *.

the documentation change can break the api of an implementation,
it is not weakening the spec.

(it can also break abi if loff_t has different abi than off64_t. two
integer types can have same range, representation and syscall argument
passing abi, but different libc abi and different c++ abi)

i don't think you can claim that glibc is compatible either way, as
a future target port can define loff_t differently than off64_t.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.