Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:08:44 -0800
> From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If so, we'd be better off completely deprecating the old calls and make
> the LFS calls the default calls (and off_t == off64_t, ino_t == ino64_t,
> etc.)
>
> Except that the LFS calls aren't completely implemented on any
> offcially released Linux . glibc tries very hard to emulate these
> calls on Linux 2.0 and Linux 2.2, but this has a cost and isn't
> perfect. IMHO deprecating these calls isn't an option within the next
> two years.
>
The cost is probably reasonable for the expense of going-forward
compatibility. Deprecating doesn't mean they won't be supported.
> Sorry for being picky, but LFS, specifically, means using an heterogenous
> API using seek64() instead of lseek() and so on and so forth. glibc 2.1
> has a define option (__USE_FILE_OFFSET64) which enables this by default;
> perhaps the right thing to do is to have this be the default, and have a
> __USE_FILE_OFFSET32 as the backwards compatibility option instead.
>
> You fiddle with __USE_FILE_OFFSET64 -though. Use
> -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 instead.
My error; please ignore this.
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
