On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:21:39AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 2023-06-28 10:53, Rich Felker wrote: > >The whole reason loff_t exists is to avoid this problem and make a > >type that's "always full width offset, regardless of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS > >or _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE" to match with the kernel expectation for these > >interfaces. > > Why can't off64_t be that type, as it is in glibc? I'm not seeing > why we need two names for the same type. And to clarify one thing: nothing glibc is doing is wrong. It's fine for glibc to define the function using off64_t as long as glibc's underlying definitions of off64_t and loff_t are the same type. This still matches the published documentation that says loff_t. I'm not asking for any change by glibc here, just a revert to the man page change which put a glibc implementation-detail in place of the equivalent prior-documented public interface. Rich
