* Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2023-07-01 00:24:27 -0700]: > On 2023-06-30 16:37, Rich Felker wrote: > > This is still changing the documentated signature, which isn't really > > nice, and would not be compatible with glibc unless glibc went out of > > its way to hide those functions when _FILE_OFFSET_BITS is 32. > > I don't see any incompatibility with glibc and the changes I proposed. The > changes merely weaken the spec in the man pages in an area where the spec > should be weakened. glibc is compatible with the spec before it was changed > to use off64_t, it's compatible with the spec now that it uses off64_t, and > it would continue to be compatible with the spec if the proposed changes are > adopted. loff_t * can be incompatible with off64_t * as well as off_t *. the documentation change can break the api of an implementation, it is not weakening the spec. (it can also break abi if loff_t has different abi than off64_t. two integer types can have same range, representation and syscall argument passing abi, but different libc abi and different c++ abi) i don't think you can claim that glibc is compatible either way, as a future target port can define loff_t differently than off64_t.
