On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 08:53:48AM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > Dave Chinner wrote: > > Thanks for asking for clarification. > > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 04:52:38PM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > > > The off64_t type is usually only conditionally exposed under the > > > feature test macro _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE (also defined by _GNU_SOURCE). > > > To make the public xfs headers more standalone therefore off64_t should > > > be avoided. > > > > "more standalone"? > > > > What does that mean? > > Programs including the xfs headers while not defining _GNU_SOURCE or > _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE will not fail with compile errors. My previous > patch changing loff_t to off64_t had the unintented consequences that > downstreams of xfs-progs like ceph had to define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE > on linux. That needs to be in the patch description - it's the motivation for the change (i.e. that downstream apps need to add new defines). > > And what does it mean for all the xfsprogs code that still uses > > off64_t? > > off_t and off64_t are now synomyms and 64 bit on all architectures. > So no difference for code using off64_t. > > Under some conditions there can be a difference for code using > off_t. Right, I understand that there is a difference - what I'm asking for is a description of the difference and an explanation of why: $ git grep off64_t | wc -l 62 $ the other ~60 uses of off64_t in the xfsprogs code are not being removed, too. i.e. if the code now won't compile if off_t isn't 64 bits, then why keep off64_t at all in any of the code? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
