On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:10:08 +0100 Timo Sirainen <t...@iki.fi> wrote:
> 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. Don't know about Ubuntu but Fedora 11 is already EOL'ed so there's no need to fix it for that. Didn't realise that glibc 2.10 was that rare. Paul.
