Support for musl libc under Linux #5939
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Mainly file I/O C library routines do not need the 64 suffix to support files larger than 2 GiB on musl, as musl came after such large files became commonplace.
|
I built and ran the executable yesterday on macOS Sonoma with the patch applied without issue. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Supplies a few ifdef for recent musl releases whose file I/O routines do not need the 64 suffix to support files larger than 2 GiB, unlike glibc.
What issue(s) does this PR address?
Fixes #5612.
Does this PR introduce new feature(s)?
No new features introduced.
Does this PR introduce any breaking change(s)?
Possibly. I only tested on Alpine Linux 3.21 x86, which is a musl only distribution. Build testing against glibc is needed.
Additional information
Changes in
src/ints/bios_disk.cppshould not be that large. Probably some line ending (CRLF vs LF) mishandling. I have a much smaller patch file as an alternative.