Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:26:18 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: enh <enh@...gle.com> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> Subject: Re: Revisiting LFS64 removal On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 11:13:28AM -0700, enh wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:36 AM Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:58 AM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:44:47AM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:07:08PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > As an alternative, maybe we should consider leaving these but only > > > > > under explict _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE rather than implicitly via > > > > > _GNU_SOURCE for at least one release cycle. This would allow > > makeshift > > > > > fixing of any builds that break by just adding -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE > > > > > until a proper fix can be applied. > > > > > > > > > > Any preference here? > > > > > > > > > > Rich > > > > > > > > Given that nothing lasts as long as a temporary measure, I'd say it is > > > > > > That's not a given for musl, quite the opposite. I would expect it to > > > last at most a release cycle, possibly even to disappear before then > > > if distros backport the changes to their development branches early > > > and find and fix everything. > > > > > > > better to rip the band-aid off in one go rather than two. Besides, any > > > > breakage ought to be able to be dealt with by a simple replacement, > > > > right? > > > > > > It's a simple fix, but the question is how many such simple fixes a > > > distro might need to make in their packages, and that I don't know. > > > > > > If they have a trivial mechanical fix of "add something to CFLAGS" > > > they can do at first, that lets them build a list of affected packages > > > while quickly getting them all building again, then work out the right > > > fixes one at a time according to usual triage rather than being > > > swamped with these taking priority over issues with more depth. > > > > > > Rich > > > > I experimented with building all the host code in the Android tree > > with these two patches just to measure the damage. The first patch is > > mostly fine, but causes link failures in rust modules. I think that's > > due to the upstream rust libc assuming the presence of fstat64, etc.: > > > > https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/master:external/rust/crates/libc/src/unix/linux_like/mod.rs;l=1665;drc=b38fde0ab980c7d79f0a55aec1b7121022a38257 > > > > The second patch causes 680 unique errors. Many of those are in > > Android-specific code that uses the *64 functions directly, which I > > think is especially common due to early bionic's poor LFS64 support. > > > > ....and the fact that we can't flip the switch globally for the OS build > without risking subtle ABI changes. but maybe these days we could recognize > such things (via the .lsdump stuff)? maybe it's time to try? > > (we have similar issues with code that's also built for macOS, which never > had the *64 functions or off64_t, so there might be some low-hanging fruit > by extending those `#if __APPLE__` hacks -- that are basically just > `#define off64_t off_t` etc -- to apply to musl too...) The intended usage as I understand it is that you would probe for sizeof(off_t)>=8 and only try to use these hacks if that's not satisfied, not hard-code combinatoric platform knowledge. Something like: checking if sizeof(off_t)>=8... [if no] checking if -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 makes sizeof(off_t)>=8... [if no] checking if -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE exposes off64_t interfaces... ... 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.