[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #30 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-06 22:46 --- This is not a regression, AFAIK, thus let's have it fixed for mainline and 4.2.0 first. We can consider backporting the change to 4_1 branch later on... -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #29 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 22:38 --- Subject: Bug 30365 Author: paolo Date: Sat Jan 6 22:38:41 2007 New Revision: 120532 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120532 Log: 2007-01-06 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR libstdc++/30365 * crossconfig.m4 (case *-linux*): Run crossconfig.m4. * configure: Regenerate. Added: branches/gcc-4_2-branch/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog-2006 Modified: branches/gcc-4_2-branch/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_2-branch/libstdc++-v3/configure branches/gcc-4_2-branch/libstdc++-v3/crossconfig.m4 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #28 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 22:38 --- Subject: Bug 30365 Author: paolo Date: Sat Jan 6 22:38:07 2007 New Revision: 120531 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120531 Log: 2007-01-06 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR libstdc++/30365 * crossconfig.m4 (case *-linux*): Run crossconfig.m4. * configure: Regenerate. Added: trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog-2006 Modified: trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog trunk/libstdc++-v3/configure trunk/libstdc++-v3/crossconfig.m4 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #27 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 19:36 --- (In reply to comment #24) > Created an attachment (id=12855) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12855&action=view) [edit] > nb: includes regenerated configure > > For now I'd like to go with this simple patch, per Joseph' suggestions. By the > way, in the meanwhile I learned that other TRY_COMPILE tests are run under the > same heading. > > Bernhard, can you test it (i.e., check that your cross builds with it)? Thanks > in advance. > Works like a charm (tested with 4.2). Please install to trunk, 4.2 and 4.1, TIA. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #26 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-05 07:02 --- Subject: Re: No possibility to disable large file support (LFS) "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I really don't think turning off LFS and using libstdc++ is a good idea anyways | because STL just bloats things anyways. Where is the connection? -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #25 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 20:31 --- (In reply to comment #24) > For now I'd like to go with this simple patch, per Joseph' suggestions. By the > way, in the meanwhile I learned that other TRY_COMPILE tests are run under the > same heading. Of course I meant TRY_LINK, sorry. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #24 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 20:25 --- Created an attachment (id=12855) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12855&action=view) nb: includes regenerated configure For now I'd like to go with this simple patch, per Joseph' suggestions. By the way, in the meanwhile I learned that other TRY_COMPILE tests are run under the same heading. Bernhard, can you test it (i.e., check that your cross builds with it)? Thanks in advance. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
-- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de |dot org | Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-01-04 18:45:25 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #23 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 13:19 --- (In reply to comment #22) > uClibc has this unfortunate habit of declaring functions in the headers > even if they are configured out and so not present in the library. So for > anything involving uClibc, link tests are more reliable. I see, thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-04 13:17 --- Subject: Re: No possibility to disable large file support (LFS) On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote: > --- Comment #21 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 13:12 --- > (In reply to comment #20) > > Since I made cross-Linux configurations require link tests to work in > > order to build libstdc++ (because of another area where uClibc is > > configurable, functions), it should be possible to use the link > > test for LFS support rather than unconditionally enabling it. > > Ah, that would be so simple. On the other hand, do you think changing the test > to be a compile test would cause any trouble? In general, I believe the fewer > link tests we have the better. uClibc has this unfortunate habit of declaring functions in the headers even if they are configured out and so not present in the library. So for anything involving uClibc, link tests are more reliable. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #21 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 13:12 --- (In reply to comment #20) > Since I made cross-Linux configurations require link tests to work in > order to build libstdc++ (because of another area where uClibc is > configurable, functions), it should be possible to use the link > test for LFS support rather than unconditionally enabling it. Ah, that would be so simple. On the other hand, do you think changing the test to be a compile test would cause any trouble? In general, I believe the fewer link tests we have the better. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-04 13:07 --- Subject: Re: No possibility to disable large file support (LFS) On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > The question is how did JSM get uclibc to work when he patched libstdc++ for > it > (PR 14939) ? Was he using a newer uclibc which actually has LFS support or > something else? I configure uClibc with LFS support enabled. Since I made cross-Linux configurations require link tests to work in order to build libstdc++ (because of another area where uClibc is configurable, functions), it should be possible to use the link test for LFS support rather than unconditionally enabling it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #19 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 13:00 --- (In reply to comment #16) > Irrespective of the other "historical" issues, assuming the test can be > changed > to an AC_TRY_COMPILE, probably can be run also for crosses, we can pass to it > an --enable-lfs library configury argument and run it always, for increased > flexibility, indeed. > Note that there is already an AC_SYS_LARGEFILE (i.e. an --enable-largefile, not --enable-lfs). Care to provide a patch which does what you suggested above? :) TIA -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #18 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 12:58 --- (In reply to comment #10) > The comment does not match up with the actually check :). I have a patch pending that fixes all these incorrect occurances of "uclibc" where it ment to say "uClinux". I intended to send it later on as normal patch without a (separate) PR, ok? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:54 --- Oh you can turn off LFS in uclibc :). So even disabling it for uclibc directly is not correct. Having a flag might be a good option but I feel it is the wrong thing to do stuff. I really don't think turning off LFS and using libstdc++ is a good idea anyways because STL just bloats things anyways. I have not got even a simple hello world program to use less than 256k of code size/data yet for spu-elf. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added GCC build triplet|i686-linux-gnu | GCC host triplet|i586-linux-uclibc | Keywords||patch http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #16 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 11:53 --- Irrespective of the other "historical" issues, assuming the test can be changed to an AC_TRY_COMPILE, probably can be run also for crosses, we can pass to it an --enable-lfs library configury argument and run it always, for increased flexibility, indeed. -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|patch | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #15 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:51 --- (In reply to comment #13) > The question is how did JSM get uclibc to work when he patched libstdc++ for > it > (PR 14939) ? Was he using a newer uclibc which actually has LFS support or > something else? He forced LFS on for anybody that turned C++ support on (in buildroot, i assume). I've fixed this bug recently to honour the user's explicit settings. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #14 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:49 --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > First uclibc really should support Large file support either the way BSD > > > handle > > > it (in my mind the correct way) or the way SYSV does. > > > > The user can optionally turn it off. This is a feature for folks that *know* > > that their devices only have let's say 64MB unified storage anyway. > > But it could connect to a network device which is going to be larger Turning off LFS is something the user wanted explicitely. You'd usually have RPC support turned off, no support for networked filesystems, NBDs etc in this case, so there is no chance that this would happen if turned off explicitely. -- aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|link-failure| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:47 --- The question is how did JSM get uclibc to work when he patched libstdc++ for it (PR 14939) ? Was he using a newer uclibc which actually has LFS support or something else? -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||link-failure, patch http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 11:46 --- Another sparse observation: GLIBCXX_CHECK_LFS probably can be changed to be simply an AC_TRY_COMPILE, because in C++ missing prototypes are diagnosed at compile time. -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||link-failure http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #11 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:46 --- (In reply to comment #9) > By the way, the attached patch seems wrong, because changes GLIBCXX_CHECK_LFS, > which is not run at all when $GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE is false. > The hunk against acinclude.m4 should perhaps be dropped. It was a sledgehammer approach to make sure that if toplevel gcc was configured with --disable-largefile, then absolutely no .*LFS.* was defined. Once again removing the incorrect keyword link-failure. -- aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|link-failure| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:45 --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #2) > > First uclibc really should support Large file support either the way BSD > > handle > > it (in my mind the correct way) or the way SYSV does. > > The user can optionally turn it off. This is a feature for folks that *know* > that their devices only have let's say 64MB unified storage anyway. But it could connect to a network device which is going to be larger > As you can see in crosscompile.m4, LFS is turned on unconditionally for > anything that is not uClinux and i'm on linux, not uClinux. The comment does not match up with the actually check :). -- Pinski -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 11:41 --- By the way, the attached patch seems wrong, because changes GLIBCXX_CHECK_LFS, which is not run at all when $GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE is false. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 11:36 --- (In reply to comment #4) > Hmm: > case "$target" in > *-uclinux*) > # Don't enable LFS with uClibc > ;; > *) > AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_LFS) > esac These bits in crossconfig.m4 are not correct, of course (don't know who added that). Given the current implementation, we should safely enable LFS *only* on linux. -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||link-failure http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #7 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:36 --- removing wrong keyword link-failure -- aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|link-failure| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 11:33 --- (In reply to comment #3) > By the way, *when* _GLIBCXX_USE_LFS is defined, the library uses lseek64 (in > basic_file_stdio.cc), *not* fseeko64, and I'd like to also understand how > possibly on this target the former is called from somewhere?!? Sorry, this last point of mine is wrong: forgot that currently the library also uses fseeko64, in stdio_sync_filebuf.h -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||link-failure http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #5 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:32 --- (In reply to comment #2) > First uclibc really should support Large file support either the way BSD > handle > it (in my mind the correct way) or the way SYSV does. The user can optionally turn it off. This is a feature for folks that *know* that their devices only have let's say 64MB unified storage anyway. > > If this code can even compile, then uclibc's headers are inccorect in saying > it > supports fseeko64. You're right in that it doesn't compile. It complains about an unknown func fseeko64. As you can see in crosscompile.m4, LFS is turned on unconditionally for anything that is not uClinux and i'm on linux, not uClinux. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:31 --- Hmm: case "$target" in *-uclinux*) # Don't enable LFS with uClibc ;; *) AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_LFS) esac -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-04 11:27 --- I don't understand: looking at configure.ac, GLIBCXX_CHECK_LFS is run *only* if $GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE is true. Otherwise, _GLIBCXX_USE_LFS remains undefined... By the way, *when* _GLIBCXX_USE_LFS is defined, the library uses lseek64 (in basic_file_stdio.cc), *not* fseeko64, and I'd like to also understand how possibly on this target the former is called from somewhere?!? -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pcarlini at suse dot de Severity|normal |critical http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:23 --- First uclibc really should support Large file support either the way BSD handle it (in my mind the correct way) or the way SYSV does. If this code can even compile, then uclibc's headers are inccorect in saying it supports fseeko64. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
[Bug libstdc++/30365] No possibility to disable large file support (LFS)
--- Comment #1 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 11:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=12854)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12854&action=view)
Add configure option to en- or disable-largefile
libstdc++/ChangeLog
2007-01-04 Bernhard Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstdc++/30365
* configure.ac: Add AC_SYS_LARGEFILE to add --{en,dis}able-largefile.
* acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_CHECK_LFS): Only define _GLIBCXX_USE_LFS if
LFS was not turned off.
* crossconfig.m4: Ditto.
configure needs to be regenerated, but i don't have the needed 2.59 autoconf
version anymore.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30365
