autoconf
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: AC_SYS_LARGEFILE macro


From: Andrej Borsenkow
Subject: RE: AC_SYS_LARGEFILE macro
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:44:58 +0400

>
> > From: "Andrej Borsenkow" <address@hidden>
> > Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:58:35 +0400
> >
> > It checks only for specific option for IRIX and _FILE_OFFSET_BITS and
> > _LARGE_FILES macros. That is not enough; e.g. on our system:
> >
> > address@hidden getconf LFS_CFLAGS
> > -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LONGLONG -Kll64
>
> This wouldn't be Reliant UNIX, would it?

Yes. Wow!
                                             (If it makes you jump
> through silly hoops like that just to access large files, no wonder
> the operating system is so rarely used.  :-)
>

Be fair. Reasons why it is so rarely used are totally different. Actually,
the system is much better (IMHO of course) than some other commercial Unices
I had to work with, including Solaris and SCO. The above is bullet proof
method; actually, both _LONGLONG and -Kll64 are default.

> Anyway, can you suggest a simple test for this problem, and suggest
> what flags should be added for that OS?  We could add a special case
> for it, just as there is already a special case for IRIX 6.2.
>

Assuming you are using native compiler, _FILE_OFFSET_BITS should be
enough. -Kll64 is not described anywhere; I suspect it is obsoltete version
of -Klonglong that is on by default. My question was mostly about getconf
usage.

> > why AC_SYS_LARGEFILE does not use getconf that is the
> > sdtandard interface to obtain {C,LD}FLAGS needed to compile
> program with LFS
> > support?
>
> I used that method originally, but it was a miserable failure in
> practice.  For example, that method fails for Bash 2.04 on Reliant
> Unix with GCC; see
> <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-bash/2001-March/001571.html>.

I know. I disabled LFS with GCC for zsh :-)

>
> And you can't easily cross-compile once you invoke getconf.
>
> I used to recommend `getconf LFS_CFLAGS', but I don't do it any more;
> in practice, it causes more trouble than it cures.  Also, `getconf
> LFS_CFLAGS' will not be included in the next POSIX standard.
>

Ah, that is the argument. Is LFS supported by default then?

-andrej




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]