From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1c]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7161395A451 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:44:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C7161395A451 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5F6336F7; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:44:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1668609849; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=onrKKA/+i9yR1z11MQRXy5ziUeh8z7TiT0ISStwe8Aw=; b=rb0M47SvdBThjrpgsxpnxzbnWn5JkQPKzA7wHCtxAMpui66S0j1JBq99b0Kjp03+pkPIUD 0vQzkSAFnSqRtkEbMQJAhTSQbo07Yb8HMnPT/07eaBfN00vDbdRarLd+smX1IxXgwxVFVa 9+NziV6dH9l9EcH3sE5b0ltipEytenw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1668609849; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=onrKKA/+i9yR1z11MQRXy5ziUeh8z7TiT0ISStwe8Aw=; b=PTn4iDDbGsE30reu2D0yRrvKKldcRFjwrEzW31wmOXGnBGDnI5Z3PRR1f83l/lQWgyBlTL RVIoeapIkkB+AUDQ== Received: from wotan.suse.de (wotan.suse.de [10.160.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8B52C141; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wotan.suse.de (Postfix, from userid 10510) id A8CF064AC; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wotan.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A788662AE; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:44:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Michael Matz To: Mike Frysinger cc: Jan Beulich , Alan Modra , Brett Werling , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] readelf: use fseeko for elf files >= 2 GiB on x86_64-mingw32 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20221114150348.112815-1-bwerl.dev@gmail.com> <8c1844c9-4b04-0200-c24e-c33009562477@suse.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hello, On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, Mike Frysinger via Binutils wrote: > > >>> I think you are correct, this will need some conditional logic to be "safe" > > >>> to > > >>> include, and even then the casting to off_t would become a little more > > >>> complicated. I will look deeper into what can be done here. > > >> > > >> See bfd/bfdio.c and bfd/configure.ac > > > > > > should we look at bfd using gnulib ? The patch is for readelf, which doesn't use libbfd. (And if readelf should use gnulib for this? I don't know, seems overkill for a single function). > > > growing our own portability layer sounds > > > like a lot of dupicative effort ... I think "growing" and "lot of" don't describe the effort. Rewriting to use gnulib (and the corresponding necessary testing) might be trivial as well (though I don't think so), but the returns are still very small. > realistically, is anyone actually testing those old distros ? Depends on the definition of old. For instance our oldish enterprise stuff (SLES12) still has current binutils, so at least there it's tested relatively good. OTOH it's only 9 years old, so some might say that doesn't qualify :) Ciao, Michael.