| 1 |
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:50:49 +0200 |
| 2 |
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > nice, but can't we add the lfs flags to our default toolchain flags |
| 7 |
> > or even better patch glibc headers to always redefine these |
| 8 |
> > functions to the 64bits variants? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> No, because that can easily break ABI of programs that actually want |
| 12 |
> the non-LFS one (for instance anything that wraps around function |
| 13 |
> calls, including but not limited to padsp, aoss, and similar |
| 14 |
> wrappers.) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This seems easily fixed with an opt-out for lfs flags that such |
| 17 |
programs can use. They'll need to be touched to disable the QA warning |
| 18 |
anyway. |
Archives