[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5179cce6-b63b-4687-8f25-f02a5fd93679@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 19:29:17 -0500
From: Brian Cain <quic_bcain@...cinc.com>
To: <musl@...ts.openwall.com>,
Alex Bennée
<alex.bennee@...aro.org>
Subject: _GNU_SOURCE and _LARGEFILE_SOURCE
In the "WHATSNEW" text, there's an item from 0.9.2 that states "- make
_GNU_SOURCE imply _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE". Is that intended to be the case
generally? I ask because in 25e6fee2 (remove LFS64 programming
interfaces (macro-only) from _GNU_SOURCE, 2022-09-27) it stated
"portable software should be prepared for them not to exist" and "the
intent is that this be a very short-term measure and that the macros be
removed entirely in the next release cycle."
This comes up because in the QEMU project, there's a linux multiarch
test case that uses readdir64 and it does define _GNU_SOURCE but does
not define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE and as such the cross compiler complains
that there's no declaration of readdir64 before the call site. I
suppose that the test case would be more portable if it defined
_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE. But I'd also be happy to send a patch to musl that
could have _GNU_SOURCE imply _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE (again?) if that's
desired. But - I gather that defining the macros is not what we want.
Instead of macros I should add declarations for readdir64() and its
LFS64 friends, but only when _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE is defined?
-Brian
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.
