Re: AC_SYS_LARGEFILE_REQUIRED vs. AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED on MSVC

Adhemerval Zanella <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs,gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>

> On 16 Apr 2023, at 12:28, Bruno Haible <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I presented the test results:
>>  - hello-3: no gnulib, just AC_SYS_LARGEFILE_REQUIRED
>>  - hello-4: no gnulib, just AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED
>>  - testdir3: a gnulib testdir for the modules largefile-required stat
>>  - testdir4: a gnulib testdir for the modules year2038-required stat
>> 
>>             mingw64  mingw32  msvc64  msvc32
>> 
>> hello-3        OK       OK     "support not detected" -> fail
>> hello-4        OK       OK     "support not detected" -> fail
>> testdir3       OK       OK       OK      OK
>> testdir4       OK       OK       OK      OK
> 
> Now, one could argue that in the above table the outcome should be:
> 
>             mingw64  mingw32  msvc64  msvc32
> 
> hello-3        OK       OK     "support not detected" -> fail
> hello-4        OK       OK       OK      OK
> testdir3       OK       OK       OK      OK
> testdir4       OK       OK       OK      OK
> 
> since in hello-4 the maintainer has only asked for year 2038
> support, not for large files support. And the dependency from year 2038
> support to large files support exists only in glibc (since the glibc
> developers found it pointless to add a 'struct stat' variant with
> 32-bit off_t and 64-bit time_t).

It is pointless indeed, it would require another 4 compat symbols with extra translation layer, further complexity for symbol redirection, and even more testing to check for any broken state (as we found while testing some some specific architectures).
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.