From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/14822 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: loff_t definition in (vs. glibc in ) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:21:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20191018012118.GV16318@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20191016212835.GA17420@dell5510> <20191016215315.GU16318@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20191017225203.GA9969@x230> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="17894"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-14838-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Oct 18 03:21:34 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iLGxR-0004WC-T2 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 03:21:33 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5343 invoked by uid 550); 18 Oct 2019 01:21:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 5323 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2019 01:21:30 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191017225203.GA9969@x230> Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:14822 Archived-At: 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 ? > > > It was defined some time ago, in v0.9.5. > > > > glibc (and thus uclibc; + also Bionic) has it in , defined long > > > time before. Who is correct? I guess loff_t not being posix, therefore it > > > shouldn't be in ? > > > > 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 . > > 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. 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