RTEMS Targets Issue #2 - ftello()/fseeko()

[Joel Sherrill]

On 03/20/2016 07:35 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 19 22:35, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>> On 2016-03-19 12:10, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> We have a few files which get warnings because
>>> ftello() and/or fseeko() are not prototyped.
>>> These were protected by:
>>>
>>> #if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) || defined(__USE_XOPEN2K)
>> Note that __USE_* is the glibc form of the internal macros, where newlib has
>> (even prior to my changes) used the BSD form __*_VISIBLE.  So this was wrong
>> to start with.
>>
>>> But now have:
>>>
>>> #if __LARGEFILE_VISIBLE
>>>
>>> The RTEMS fseeko() test does not explicitly define
>>> __USE_XOPEN2K so I am guessing it was implicit before.
>>>
>>> Does the newlib guard need tinkering, the RTEMS default
>>> features, or the test code in RTEMS?
>> feature_test_macros(7) says that _XOPEN_SOURCE>= 500 includes these two
>> largefile functions implicitly, but fseeko(3) says they are also
>> POSIX.1-2001.  Does changing the guard to:
>>
>> #if __LARGEFILE_VISIBLE || __POSIX_VISIBLE>= 200112
>>
>> fix this issue?
Hacking on an installed header to use this and I didn't
get a warning.
> glibc's fseeko/ftello man page claims this guard:
>
>     _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE>= 200112L ||
>     _XOPEN_SOURCE>= 600
>     (defining the obsolete _LARGEFILE_SOURCE macro also works)
>
> Note especially the _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64.  So fseeko/ftello are
> always defined on systems with sizeof(off_t) == 8.
>
If someone turns that into the conditional, I will test it also.
But it looks like it should work also. Or commit something
and I will rebuild tools and do a clean test sweep.

I need to double check but the only other issues I think I am
seeing are:

+ binutils master has an ld issue on v850
+ epiphany's machine/stdlib.h includes its own unique versions
    of a couple of random methods. We want to turn them off for
    at least RTEMS. They are an incomplete set and make a single
    target inconsistent with the rest of our targets.

diff --git a/newlib/libc/machine/epiphany/machine/stdlib.h 
b/newlib/libc/machine
index 95b4063..7ede4dd 100644
--- a/newlib/libc/machine/epiphany/machine/stdlib.h
+++ b/newlib/libc/machine/epiphany/machine/stdlib.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#ifndef __rtems__
  static __inline__ long int
  random (void)
  {
@@ -13,3 +14,4 @@ srandom (unsigned int seed)

    srand (seed);
  }
+#endif

Is this patch OK? If so, I will post it formally with a comment.

--joel

> Corinna
>


-- 
-- Joel Sherrill
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS
Support and Training Available