This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: using _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 with a non-gcc compiler

> From: Ulrich Drepper <>
> Date: 12 Nov 2001 11:49:48 -0800
> > I'm sympathetic to your desire to avoid mucking with the namespace,
> > but disabling LFS is pretty extreme.  Most application programmers
> > want functionality more than they want pedantic POSIX support.
> Then tell them to use a reasonable compiler.

If that's your decision, it would be helpful if the documentation
covered this point, as it's currently unclear (at least to me).
Here's a small patch that would do this:

--- install.texi	Sun May 27 06:53:41 2001
+++ install-fix.texi	Mon Nov 12 21:00:59 2001
@@ -417,6 +417,11 @@ patches, although we try to avoid this.
 @appendixsec Supported Configurations
 @cindex configurations, all supported
+Applications that are compiled and linked with the GNU C Library
+should use GCC release 2.95 or later.  Other compilers are not
+currently supported and may generate spurious diagnostics and/or
+incorrect code.
 The GNU C Library currently supports configurations that match the
 following patterns:

> > using Solaris as a precedent actually argues for something like
> > Bruno's patch, because because Solaris's headers work correctly
> > and sanely only with Sun's compilers.
> Wrong.

I described how existing compilers behave today.  The description
wasn't wrong.

> This just means the fixincludes isn't doing its job

A better way to fix the GCC+Solaris compatibility bug would be to
modify GCC to understand the Solaris header conventions.  fixincludes
is too brittle in practice.  However, this is a different subject and
I don't think it affects the main point of this thread.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]