This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.wkpowerlink.com>] libc/1424: llseek symbol is attractive nuisance
- To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.wkpowerlink.com>] libc/1424: llseek symbol is attractive nuisance
- From: Michael Deutschmann <michael at talamasca dot wkpowerlink dot com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 14:38:31 -0800 (PST)
- cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, "GNU C. library Alpha Tester List" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
On 25 Nov 1999, you wrote:
> Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:
>
> > -Wimplicit is your friend. There are _many_ other functions in glibc that
> > are not declared by default (all GNU extensions). A program that compiles
> > and links successfully is not necessarily correct.
>
> Yup, will not be changed.
But an llseek() prototype *never* appears, even if _GNU_SOURCE is defined.
And this llseek symbol means that autoconf's usual test will show the
library as having "llseek" functionality, which it doesn't really.
Remember that the missing prototype causes a calling-convention screwup,
which makes llseek() dangerous. Think about what can happen when to an
fsck program if the seek function cannot be trusted... it did, I'm told.
T'so now maintains that you guys are ivory-tower lunatics over it.
Can we at least get a "The llseek function is dangerous and should not
be used." message?
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.wkpowerlink.com>