[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: flag day for 64-bit?
From: |
Roland McGrath |
Subject: |
Re: flag day for 64-bit? |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Jun 2002 19:12:36 -0400 (EDT) |
> This doesn't actually break source compatibility, but it does break
> binary compatibility, AFAICT.
You are either naive or have vast trust in the cleanliness of all user code.
> Sure, but that's what I thought a flag day was. :)
Well, there's little flags and there's big flags. The plan I described
would have the (small) set of consequences I described. Your plan would
require recompiling everything everywhere yet again. Jeff might kill you.
> Seriously, I think we should make the end-state as pretty as possible.
I don't think there is anything really wrong with the LFS interface.
People expect it. I suppose we could one day change the default to
_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64.
> The "correct" end state is one which might not follow the broken Linux
> definitions. Still, compatibility (in that same end state) is also
> important, and we'd like one day to have generic programs for the Hurd
> and for Linux differ only in the library they link against.
To get that we need to stick with the current LFS interface plan. That is,
code compiled with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 will produce references to foo64
when the source says foo.
Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/06/07