[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <574389bd-7481-7192-d1ba-f4e62e34c358@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2023 16:02:49 -0700
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>
To: libc-coord@...ts.openwall.com, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: Re: [musl] Re: regression in man pages for
interfaces using loff_t
On 2023-07-01 06:36, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> loff_t * can be incompatible with off64_t * as well as off_t *.
loff_t * cannot be incompatible with the off64_t in the current
implementation. The same goes for off_t, if you compile with
_FILE_OFFSET_BITS set to 64.
As you suggest, a future implementation might change this. But if
anything this strengthens the case for the documentation avoiding these
pseudo-off_t types, as they're less stable.
> the documentation change can break the api of an implementation,
> it is not weakening the spec.
Are you talking about the doc change from loff_t to off64_t? If so, I
agree that change invalidated the musl implementation. When I wrote "I
don't see any incompatibility with glibc and the changes I proposed" I
was talking about the patch proposed here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/31b53a8d-7cf4-b3a3-371f-a5723963383e@cs.ucla.edu/2-0001-off64_t-prefer-off_t-for-splice-etc.patch
As far as I can see, this proposed patch doesn't invalidate any
implementation. If it does invalidate one could you please give an
example call that follows the rules of the proposed patch but does not
work on glibc or on musl?
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.
