-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5k
Mono musl support #76500
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Mono musl support #76500
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -1325,7 +1325,7 @@ int32_t SystemNative_CopyFile(intptr_t sourceFd, intptr_t destinationFd, int64_t | |||
// Try copying data using a copy-on-write clone. This shares storage between the files. | ||||
if (sourceLength != 0) | ||||
{ | ||||
while ((ret = ioctl(outFd, FICLONE, inFd)) < 0 && errno == EINTR); | ||||
while ((ret = ioctl(outFd, (int)FICLONE, inFd)) < 0 && errno == EINTR); | ||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @ayakael There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This was a proposal by @am11, as build failed without setting Here is the exact error:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If you change last argument to
(int)FICLONE cast, does it fix both linux-ppc64le and linux-musl-ppc64le builds?
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That would be incorrect - the This issue seems to be caused by some difference in the definition of
Is this declared differently in musl? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It is a ppc64le specific issue, where musl and glibc have different definitions. Rest of the platform matrix (including linux-musl-x64/arm64/arm etc..) is fine either way.
I see, so the current definition is also incorrect; should be There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The only difference between ppc64le and other platforms is the numerical value of
No. We must use There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Indeed this seems to be problem. In the musl headers I see instead:
I guess as long as the two headers differ, there's probably no way to fix the source to work with both libcs, except for using some #ifdef ... |
||||
copied = ret == 0; | ||||
} | ||||
#endif | ||||
|
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.