apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Hudson <ghud...@MIT.EDU>
Subject Re: Solving the off_t problem in APR 1.0
Date Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:32:20 GMT
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 05:49, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Won't that create an ABI time bomb for platforms which have no
> > large-file support now, but acquire it in the future?
> 
> That's asking for a level of ABI guarantee which I don't think APR can
> provide regardless of this apr_off_t issue.
> 
> Will a libapr-0.so built on RHL9 have a compatible ABI with a
> libapr-0.so built on RHL6.2?

Generally, yes.  Why wouldn't it?  And if it is incompatible, how can we
ensure that they have different sonames?

> What if the libpthread soname changed between OS versions?

Libraries like libc and libpthread very rarely change sonames, precisely
because it effectively breaks the ABI of every library which depends on
them.  The libc soname change in *BSD for the off_t was extraordinary.

There is a new idea afloat, incidentally: rather than fix apr_off_t at
64 bits, fix apr_off_t at the size off_t has at configuration time. 
(There appears to be no off32_t, so that would have to be apr_int32_t on
most 32-bit platforms.)  That doesn't get large-file support, but it
does make apr_off_t independent of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS, and it doesn't
cause an ABI change.


Mime
View raw message