[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up
From: |
Greg Troxel |
Subject: |
Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Jan 2023 09:42:06 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (berkeley-unix) |
"Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com> writes:
>> >> What happens if a library defines D_TIME_BITS 64 and makes
>> >> syscalls, and a program which is unaware of this defines 32 and
>> >> also makes sycalls? Or is the syscall switch per .o because the
>> >> names are #defined?
>> >
>> > That can never happen.
>>
>> I don't see how different .o files are prohibited from having
>> different _TIME_SIZE_BITS, unless it leads to a link failure.
>
> You can always build bad .o. But good practice is to build all .o
> in a program or binary with the same setting. Otherwise a huge number
> of ways to fail. That is why all gpsd c files start with:
>
> #include "../include/gpsd_config.h" // must be before all includes
I was asking about an installed library built one way, and a program
built another. It seems like they will have DT_NEEDED on two different
libc versions, which will end up somewhere between erroring at start and
UB.
How are you going to manage building gpsd to match the time_t size
choice made in dbus and libusb? How is anyone else going to manage this
in the world of individual compilation unit choice? The only paths I can
see are
a distribution choosing a setting for all programs
setting up two hierarchies of lib/bin for building each way
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, (continued)
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Greg Troxel, 2023/01/13
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Greg Troxel, 2023/01/13
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Gary E. Miller, 2023/01/13
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Greg Troxel, 2023/01/14
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Gary E. Miller, 2023/01/14
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Gary E. Miller, 2023/01/13
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Greg Troxel, 2023/01/14
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Gary E. Miller, 2023/01/14
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up,
Greg Troxel <=
- Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Gary E. Miller, 2023/01/15
My ignorance was Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, James Browning, 2023/01/13
Re: ✘64-bit time_t on glibc 2.34 and up, Richard Laager, 2023/01/13
Message not available