Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Roland Mainz wrote:
>>
>>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [Roland and I are bouncing a proposal back and forth...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>> We still miss touch(1) in the list of 64 bit binaries
>>>> in order to be able to correct the time stamps for problematic files.
>>>>
> ...
>
>> This is not architectural, but is the only way to fix this to use a
>> 64-bit binary? Can't we fix it using uint64_t or somesuch in a 32-bit
>> program? (I'm talking about the specific deficiency for
>> /usr/bin/touch.) I'd like the fix to be available from a 32-bit
>> environment as well as a 64-bit one, otherwise the "fix" is incomplete.
>>
>
> The only way to stat(2) such files is to use a 64 bit binary, so yes we
> need a 64 bit touch
>
Maybe we need to invent a new lstat64_2 or somesuch, that uses 64-bit
time_t's. I certainly would like to see a fix that is available from
32-bit kernels, if at all possible. But this sounds like a bigger issue.
I also remain unfond of the approach of turning a bunch of key programs
in /usr/bin into isaexec() links. While the isaexec() approach was not
unreasonable for a few utilities that aren't run frequently like
prtconf, I don't think the solution scales well.
-- Garrett
>
>
> J?rg
>
>
