On 26/01/2013 17:14, Martin Buchholz wrote:
:
Following up on this, I have a simple webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk8/LARGEFILE/
with an "obviously correct" fix. However:
- we need a bug filed
- This change is completely untested. I no longer have access to native
32-bit systems where this bug might be manifested. I have not tried to
actually provoke a failure, although it should not be too hard to create a
3GB jar file with the contents of interest at the end, on a system where
off_t is signed 32-bit.
- As we discussed, it might be better to have a JLI_Open (or even better,
common C-level infrastructure for the whole project) but only you guys have
access to the variety of systems to write and test such a thing, even if it
is just a few lines of code.
So next step here is up to you.
I've created a bug to track this first installation:
8006995: java launcher fails top en executable JAR > 2GB
I think the proposed changes are okay, a no-brainer really. It would be
nice if the open were moved to platform specific code, then we could use
open64 and drop O_LARGEFILE flag. That might be something for future
refactoring (I think JLI_Open was suggested in an earlier mail).
Ideally we should have a test but we've had a lot of bad experience with
files that need multi-GB zip files (slow, need lots of disk space) so I
think it would be saner to leave it out this time.
-Alan.
