On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:10:08 +0100 Timo Sirainen tss@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.