[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ac_sys_largefile / fseeko problem

From: Guido Draheim
Subject: Re: ac_sys_largefile / fseeko problem
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:02:58 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de-AT; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Petr Vandrovec schrieb:
On 17 Mar 03 at 11:33, Guido Draheim wrote:

Personally, I think it would be the best to simply
add a global change in features.h

What about reading LFS standard: if _LARGEFILE_SOURCE is not
defined, neither fseeko nor fseeko64 do exist. Take it up with standard authors, not with glibc guys.

I can take it up with either guys ;-)

Firstly, SUS2/UNIX98 lists fseeko _without_ a requirement
on some _LARGEFILE_SOURCE to exist. Read the given standard
page reference if you don't believe me:

Secondly, I'm cc'ing autoconf ML exactly for that reason,
even that LFS specs mandate that it should be the
primary selector to enable LFS pieces. I guess that you
did guess a requirement for fseeko from that fact.

Thirdly, it doesn't help to be anal about stuff that
other unix systems do not particulary care for, and
which in fact can lead to silent errors and get your
database deleted. It sometimes helps to face reality :-)=)

Lastly, try again convincing me that the non-export
of fseeko is better than having an export of a extra
symbol that some sources do not need. And when the
situation of an "give me a 64bit off_t" is detected,
then no need either to export _all_ off_t-related
functions? C'mon, try.... ;-)

-- have fun, guido

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]