Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:21:18 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: loff_t definition in <fcntl.h> (vs. glibc in <sys/types.h>) On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:52:05AM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > 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. What did you encounter that needs it that's not declared in fcntl.h? Are you sure you're not using loff_t where off_t would be the right type? loff_t only appears in some kernel interfaces that were intended to work the same regardless of whether glibc was configured for 32-bit or 64-bit off_t. Rich
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.