Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:03:50 -0700 From: enh <enh@...gle.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> Subject: Re: Revisiting LFS64 removal On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 12:26 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > 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. yeah, the problem was that we had (ten years ago) the following three situations, and code that needed to build with all three: 1. bionic at the time had a 32-bit off_t and didn't have _FILE_OFFSET_BITS, but did have off64_t and [some of] the *64 functions. 2. glibc had _FILE_OFFSET_BITS, but we weren't using it (or were using it set to 32?). 3. apple's libc didn't have _FILE_OFFSET_BITS, didn't have off64_t or the *64 functions, but everything was 64-bit anyway. so what's happened is that we've got some source (stuff that needs to build for device and host) where we have heavy use of the *64 functions, and then #define hacks in the case where it also needs to build for the mac. luckily, in the meantime we took over bionic and fixed that, though we _didn't_ change the default for `_FILE_OFFSET_BITS` for the ABI reasons i mentioned previously. what we _did_ do though was make the *host* build use `-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64`. so given that musl is only for the host, replacing glibc, and it seems unlikely that much if any of this code actually needs to compile for ancient versions of bionic, i think we can just "remove the 64s". ccross: happy to shard that work if you want to go that route! > 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 > Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.