Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:52:05 +0200
From: Petr Vorel <>
Subject: Re: loff_t definition in <fcntl.h> (vs. glibc in

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,


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.