From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4885 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "writeonce@midipix.org" Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: fopen64 and friends as aliases Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:03:54 -0400 Message-ID: <534D829A.8030808@midipix.org> References: <20140415065946.dc30d64f61e5ec441c34ffd4f788e58e.ffe7ab07f9.wbe@email22.secureserver.net> <20140415142106.GX26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1397588660 16390 80.91.229.3 (15 Apr 2014 19:04:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:04:20 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4889-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Apr 15 21:04:13 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wa8eT-00037C-1g for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:04:13 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 26547 invoked by uid 550); 15 Apr 2014 19:04:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 26536 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2014 19:04:11 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 In-Reply-To: <20140415142106.GX26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4885 Archived-At: On 04/15/2014 10:21 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 06:59:46AM -0700, writeonce@midipix.org wrote: >> Greetings, >> I could not find in the archives any discussion of the above topic, and >> was therefore wondering: would it be possible to have fopen64 and friends >> (fseeko64, ftello64, tmpfile64) as aliases of the non-prefixed functions, >> rather than having them #define'd as synonyms? This will make most of the >> musl-llvm patch unnecessary, and could probably help with other packages >> as well. >> Kind regards, >> zg > For some of them like stat64, the #define is necessary anyway since > there is a struct that also needs to be mapped. So it's not so simple. > In any case, the aliases already exist for binary compatibility, but > some of them would be masked by these defines even if we declared them > in the public headers. > > Really what you're asking for is just a workaround of a nonsensical > bug in llvm, which should just be fixed. There is no excuse for the > hack they're doing with namespaces; instead the names should just be > properly prefixed to avoid clashing. I understand. In that case, and for those functions that do not require an extra structure mapping, what is the advantage of #define fopen64 fopen over FILE *fopen64 (const char *__restrict, const char *__restrict); If the weak alias is already there anyway, then using the latter should only "penalize" (by adding a reference to the extra symbol) those apps/libs that use fopen64 in the first place. Is that correct? > > Rich > >