[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJgzZor=jF3Xpt=Tuq17H2NU4_HJjFB-wnfRBztZgOeZexuRRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:13:28 -0700
From: enh <enh@...gle.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net>
Subject: Re: Revisiting LFS64 removal
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:36 AM Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:58 AM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:44:47AM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:07:08PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > As an alternative, maybe we should consider leaving these but only
> > > > under explict _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE rather than implicitly via
> > > > _GNU_SOURCE for at least one release cycle. This would allow
> makeshift
> > > > fixing of any builds that break by just adding -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
> > > > until a proper fix can be applied.
> > > >
> > > > Any preference here?
> > > >
> > > > Rich
> > >
> > > Given that nothing lasts as long as a temporary measure, I'd say it is
> >
> > That's not a given for musl, quite the opposite. I would expect it to
> > last at most a release cycle, possibly even to disappear before then
> > if distros backport the changes to their development branches early
> > and find and fix everything.
> >
> > > better to rip the band-aid off in one go rather than two. Besides, any
> > > breakage ought to be able to be dealt with by a simple replacement,
> > > right?
> >
> > It's a simple fix, but the question is how many such simple fixes a
> > distro might need to make in their packages, and that I don't know.
> >
> > If they have a trivial mechanical fix of "add something to CFLAGS"
> > they can do at first, that lets them build a list of affected packages
> > while quickly getting them all building again, then work out the right
> > fixes one at a time according to usual triage rather than being
> > swamped with these taking priority over issues with more depth.
> >
> > Rich
>
> I experimented with building all the host code in the Android tree
> with these two patches just to measure the damage. The first patch is
> mostly fine, but causes link failures in rust modules. I think that's
> due to the upstream rust libc assuming the presence of fstat64, etc.:
>
> https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/master:external/rust/crates/libc/src/unix/linux_like/mod.rs;l=1665;drc=b38fde0ab980c7d79f0a55aec1b7121022a38257
>
> The second patch causes 680 unique errors. Many of those are in
> Android-specific code that uses the *64 functions directly, which I
> think is especially common due to early bionic's poor LFS64 support.
>
...and the fact that we can't flip the switch globally for the OS build
without risking subtle ABI changes. but maybe these days we could recognize
such things (via the .lsdump stuff)? maybe it's time to try?
(we have similar issues with code that's also built for macOS, which never
had the *64 functions or off64_t, so there might be some low-hanging fruit
by extending those `#if __APPLE__` hacks -- that are basically just
`#define off64_t off_t` etc -- to apply to musl too...)
> There are a few usages in third party code, but I think most of them
> just need a tweak in the configs Android uses.
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
