On 22.10.2010, at 19.22, Paul Howarth wrote: > In glibc 2.10 (32 bit) fallocate() exists but fallocate64() doesn't. > When _FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64, fallocate() is a redirect to fallocate64() > and the program can't be linked (fails to find symbol fallocate64). > See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/500487
Yeah, I knew about it happening also on Ubuntu 9.10. > Attached patch detects fallocate() more robustly to guard against this > problem. A lot of code just to work around a bug that apparently only exists in Ubuntu 9.10 and Fedora 11. Is there a reason for anyone to be actually using either of them? I was thinking about just ignoring this problem.
