On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:13:44 GMT, Matthias Baesken <mbaes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> In the same spirit as >> [JDK-8318696](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8318696), we should adapt >> the AIX-specific code in hotspot so it uses the well-defined posix `<foo>` >> functions, instead of `<foo>64`. By setting the define _LARGE_FILES, this >> will make `<foo>` behave as `<foo>64`, just as _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 does on >> gcc. (Reference: >> https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.1?topic=volumes-writing-programs-that-access-large-files) >> >> In theory, it should not even be necessary to set this, since we only >> compile for 64-bit AIX platforms, and this is only relevant on 32-bit >> platforms. But let's add the define anyway, for good measure. It shows at >> least that we have thought about the matter. :-) >> >> I have not been able to test this on AIX. I hope someone with AIX access can >> take this for a spin. >> >> The reason I'm doing this is for >> [JDK-8324539](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324539). After both these >> bugs are fixed, there will be no more `<foo>64` function calls in the code >> base. > > Using the '_LARGE_FILES' should be okay, I checked this in a small example in > the binary and it showed the the 64bit/large file function was used. > Looks good from my end now. I leave the final approval to @MBaesken since he > ran this through our testing I believe. I put it into our build/test queue (so far had only a look at the change). Unfortunately with going away from the <name>64 functions on AIX, it gets very intransparent. In case we lose the compile flag (or the compile flags gets filtered out/is not set for some compilation unit) we silently fall back to "short files" support instead of "large files" support. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.1?topic=volumes-writing-programs-that-access-large-files "It has the disadvantage of creating some ambiguity in the code because the size of the various data items cannot be determined from looking at the code" ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17611#issuecomment-1918611708
