[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#618033: texlive-bin-2009: Missing -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 leads to files not opening (x86 /32bit)



On 13.03.11 Pierre SCHNIZER <p.schnizer@gsi.de> (p.schnizer@gsi.de) wrote:

Hi Pierre,

I continue discussing in the bug, please keep it in Cc, when
answering.

> --- texlive-bin-2009/debian/rules	2011-03-12 21:23:52.000000000 +0100
> +++ texlive-bin-2009-modified/debian/rules	2011-03-13 16:49:37.000000000 +0100
> @@ -18,6 +18,15 @@
>  ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),$(GCC_44_ARCHES)))
>      export CC=gcc-4.4
>      export CXX=g++-4.4
> +else
> +    # This is a hack here. I used it to rebuild the binaries on x86/32bit and 
> +    # check that the stat() call would then succeed in 
> +    # texlive-bin-2009/texk/kpathsea/readable.c
> +    # I guess that necessity for the flag should be detected by autconf/automake
> +    # I am not familiar enough with the GNU buildchain to try that
> +    # Pierre
> +    export CC=gcc -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
> +    export CXX=g++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
>  endif
> 
>  ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),$(RELAX_ARCHES)))
>  
For the records: I asked Pierre, why we should introduce the gcc
option -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 only on arches !armel. Here is his
answer.

<quote src=Pierre>

[Hilmar:]
> 
> 2. Is the option -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 really only on arches
> !armel needed or can the option bei introduced in general?
> 
I have not enough experience to judge that. I guess so, but I also
guess it would be better to enable AC_SYS_LARGEFILE for
autoconf/automake.

The same applies to readdable. It does not need to be patched.

</quote>

> --- texlive-bin-2009/texk/kpathsea/readable.c	2009-03-16 16:13:07.000000000 +0100
> +++ texlive-bin-2009-modified/texk/kpathsea/readable.c	2011-03-13 16:44:41.000000000 +0100
> @@ -58,9 +58,51 @@
>  		  !(st & FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY));
> 
So, this part of the patch can be romoved and the only thing, to be
done is to use -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 and/or enable LFS support,
correct?

Thanks,
  Hilmar
-- 
sigmentation fault



Reply to: