24 Oct
2010
24 Oct
'10
5:10 p.m.
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.