On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> I'd feel a lot safer about changing the default if we had some way of >> tagging object files and shared libraries so that _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=32 >> and _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 code could not be combined. Do we already have > > But combining such files is fine if _FILE_OFFSET_BITS is not part of the > ABI for those libraries (and there are plenty of libraries for which > that's the case, even if they should be using _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 > internally). (I'm taking this as an implied statement that we *don't* have any such tagging now.) It's true that tagging would over-estimate incompatibility, but if doing it reduces the risk of invisible breakage enough that we can feel confident about changing the default, maybe we should do it anyway. (I'd still worry about invisible breakage of _applications_ due to e.g. assuming sizeof(off_t) <= sizeof(size_t), but there's probably nothing the _library_ can do about that.) zw -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
