On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > nice, but can't we add the lfs flags to our default toolchain flags or > even better patch glibc headers to always redefine these functions to > the 64bits variants? >
No, because that can easily break ABI of programs that actually want the non-LFS one (for instance anything that wraps around function calls, including but not limited to padsp, aoss, and similar wrappers.) FreeBSD has removed the symbols on an ABI bump, which hopefully could happen for glibc in a far and remote future, too. But as long as the symbols are there, the defines shouldn't be forced. Mike, thanks for doing this, it has been a pain in my shoe since 2008 <https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/11/who-wants-to-support-largefile>. I'm looking forward to the protests that 64-bit inodes don't exist, though. Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes https://blog.flameeyes.eu/
