| 1 |
On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> nice, but can't we add the lfs flags to our default toolchain flags or |
| 4 |
> even better patch glibc headers to always redefine these functions to |
| 5 |
> the 64bits variants? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
No, because that can easily break ABI of programs that actually want the |
| 9 |
non-LFS one (for instance anything that wraps around function calls, |
| 10 |
including but not limited to padsp, aoss, and similar wrappers.) FreeBSD |
| 11 |
has removed the symbols on an ABI bump, which hopefully could happen for |
| 12 |
glibc in a far and remote future, too. But as long as the symbols are |
| 13 |
there, the defines shouldn't be forced. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Mike, thanks for doing this, it has been a pain in my shoe since 2008 |
| 16 |
<https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/11/who-wants-to-support-largefile>. I'm |
| 17 |
looking forward to the protests that 64-bit inodes don't exist, though. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 20 |
https://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives