[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:52:05 +0200
From: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: loff_t definition in <fcntl.h> (vs. glibc in
<sys/types.h>)
Hi Rich,
> > what is the reason for loff_t being defined in <fcntl.h> ?
> > It was defined some time ago, in v0.9.5.
> > glibc (and thus uclibc; + also Bionic) has it in <sys/types.h>, defined long
> > time before. Who is correct? I guess loff_t not being posix, therefore it
> > shouldn't be in <sys/types.h> ?
> > I'm asking because it'd be nice to have it for both in single header
> > (portability).
> The reason it's defined in fcntl.h is because that's where the
> declarations for the only functions which use it in their interfaces
> reside. If it needs to be made available from multiple places, that
> could be done at some point, but this is a really minor type that
> shouldn't be used except with with functions defined in terms of it.
Thanks for info. So maybe glibc shouldn't have defined it in <sys/types.h>.
FYI I'm handling compatibility issues for LTP [1], which often uses kernel API
in order to test it. Probably normal user space applications don't have needs we
have in LTP.
Kind regards,
Petr
[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/
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.
