Armin K. wrote: > On 07/14/2012 11:35 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Armin K. wrote: >>> On 07/14/2012 10:49 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>> >>>> I'll take a look. Thanks for the suggestions. >> >>> Here are some corrections to your work. I've defined path to usb.ids and >>> pci.ids, added common library to shared libudev because there are >>> undefined references later when linking against that one. Also, I've >>> modified installation to install gtk-doc htmldocs that are present there. >> >> >> +OPTIONS += -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 >> >> >> I haven't had time to look at everything yet, but I did find out that a >> sed works too: >> >> $ sed -i 's/off_t factor;/int64_t factor;/' src/shared/util.c >> >> I think that's a smaller fix as far a code generation goes. It's just a >> build issue though. The functions that use this code are not used in >> udev. The compile options -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections and the >> link options -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,--gc-sections mean that this code never >> gets built into the executables and they are not in libudev either.
> > I dislike that sed. Maintainers know what are they doing. Even udev 182 > has those CFLAGS set by default (AC_SYS_LARGEFILE macro handles that) > ... Just let them be there. Most of the time I would agree with you, but not in this case. I don't think the maintainers thought about the type when they created the table with an off_t index. It's a kludge to make off_t to used 64 bits in a 32 bit system when specifying it directly in the code is more direct. There are a couple of other types that could be used too: offset_t or off64_t are always 64 bits as well as int64_t. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
