This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: using _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 with a non-gcc compiler
> From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
> Date: 12 Nov 2001 11:49:48 -0800
>
> > I'm sympathetic to your desire to avoid mucking with the namespace,
> > but disabling LFS is pretty extreme. Most application programmers
> > want functionality more than they want pedantic POSIX support.
>
> Then tell them to use a reasonable compiler.
If that's your decision, it would be helpful if the documentation
covered this point, as it's currently unclear (at least to me).
Here's a small patch that would do this:
--- install.texi Sun May 27 06:53:41 2001
+++ install-fix.texi Mon Nov 12 21:00:59 2001
@@ -417,6 +417,11 @@ patches, although we try to avoid this.
@appendixsec Supported Configurations
@cindex configurations, all supported
+Applications that are compiled and linked with the GNU C Library
+should use GCC release 2.95 or later. Other compilers are not
+currently supported and may generate spurious diagnostics and/or
+incorrect code.
+
The GNU C Library currently supports configurations that match the
following patterns:
> > using Solaris as a precedent actually argues for something like
> > Bruno's patch, because because Solaris's headers work correctly
> > and sanely only with Sun's compilers.
>
> Wrong.
I described how existing compilers behave today. The description
wasn't wrong.
> This just means the fixincludes isn't doing its job
A better way to fix the GCC+Solaris compatibility bug would be to
modify GCC to understand the Solaris header conventions. fixincludes
is too brittle in practice. However, this is a different subject and
I don't think it affects the main point of this thread.