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 , 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  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.