From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13265 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2013 19:26:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 13242 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2013 19:26:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:26:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1RJQaA5000672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:26:37 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.137] (ovpn-113-137.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.137]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1RJQY9O031582; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:26:36 -0500 Message-ID: <512E5DEA.5090504@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:26:00 -0000 From: "Carlos O'Donell" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland McGrath CC: GNU C Library , libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Copy as much as you can during a 32-bit stat before returning EOVERFLOW? References: <512D1335.1020704@redhat.com> <20130226210002.C598C2C07E@topped-with-meat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130226210002.C598C2C07E@topped-with-meat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2 On 02/26/2013 04:00 PM, Roland McGrath wrote: > The argument in favor of this API change seems quite thin. An old > program will have to be modified to accept EOVERFLOW failures, so why > not modify it to use *64 interfaces or -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 instead? > It may seem at first blush that the change would be simpler in complex > programs. But, in fact, to be robust when using older libcs a program > would have to do something very special to distinguish a library call > (new-style) that delivered some truncated values from one (old-style) > that delivered some or all uninitialized fields. A given users needs are far more focused. In practice they want to move to a newer distribution or filesystem and keep down the cost of the upgrade while incrementally fixing applications. > I don't see any defensible rationale for putting such a change into > libc. I agree. I didn't want to colour the conversation with my initial opinion, but it seems like everyone is pretty well agreed that the change would complicate the API without enough gain. Cheers, Carlos.