[PATCH] manual: remove misplaced time_t note from _FILE_OFFSET_BITS [BZ #34095]
Shamil Abdulaev
ashamil435@gmail.com
Fri Apr 24 00:14:15 GMT 2026
Thanks for the clarification — I missed the transitive dependency.
Does this mean you consider BZ #34095 invalid as well? Should I close the
bug and withdraw the patch?
пт, 24 апр. 2026 г. в 02:39, Mark Harris <mark.hsj@gmail.com>:
> Shamil Abdulaev wrote:
> >
> > The paragraph warning that _FILE_OFFSET_BITS's default may change due
> > to time_t Y2038 safety was placed inside the _FILE_OFFSET_BITS
> > section, but Y2038 is a concern of _TIME_BITS. The adjacent _TIME_BITS
> > section already documents the Y2038 behaviour, so remove the
> > misplaced paragraph rather than merging it in.
>
> This is not misplaced. It is saying that as the year 2038 approaches,
> a change to _TIME_BITS=64 is inevitable. However as mentioned later,
> _TIME_BITS=64 requires _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64. Therefore a change to
> _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is also inevitable, and you should not assume in
> your code that the current default will persist just because it has
> been that way for decades. Even if your software will never need to
> support files over 2 GB and you plan to never update it, you may be
> unable to avoid rebuilding it with the new default just to keep it
> working.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shamil Abdulaev <ashamil435@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > manual/creature.texi | 5 -----
> > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/manual/creature.texi b/manual/creature.texi
> > index 90f9f8e35b..e1888d5f72 100644
> > --- a/manual/creature.texi
> > +++ b/manual/creature.texi
> > @@ -161,11 +161,6 @@ under different names (as they are with
> @code{_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE}).
> > Instead the old function names now reference the new functions, e.g., a
> > call to @code{fseeko} now indeed calls @code{fseeko64}.
> >
> > -If the macro is not defined it currently defaults to @code{32}, but
> > -this default is planned to change due to a need to update
> > -@code{time_t} for Y2038 safety, and applications should not rely on
> > -the default.
> > -
> > This macro should only be selected if the system provides mechanisms for
> > handling large files. On @w{64 bit} systems this macro has no effect
> > since the @code{*64} functions are identical to the normal functions.
> > --
> > 2.54.0
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20260424/9beeaa61/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list