Do we need sys_open() et al (_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE and open64())?

[Jeremy Allison]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 01:55:04PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 
> While we are thinking about sys_ wrappers, I wondered if we still really
> needed the sys_*() wrappers for open64 etc?  
> 
> man feature_test_macros(7) says:
> 
>        _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
> Expose  definitions  for  the  alternative  API  specified  by  the  LFS
> (Large File Summit) as a "transitional extension" to the Single UNIX
> Specification.  (See http://opengroup.org/platform/lfs.html.)  The
> alternative API consists of a set of new objects (i.e., functions and
> types) whose names are suffixed with "64" (e.g., off64_t versus off_t,
> lseek64()  versus  lseek(), etc.).  New programs should not employ this
> interface; instead _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 should be employed.
> 
>        _FILE_OFFSET_BITS
> Defining  this  macro  with  the  value 64 automatically converts
> references to 32-bit functions and data types related to file I/O and
> file system operations into references to their 64-bit counterparts.  
> 
> As such, are there any systems that we need that have
> _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE but not _FILE_OFFSET_BITS?
> 
> Thanks,

Oooh. That's a really good point. It would simplify
those interfaces. How do we find out if the open64
etc. are still being used on platforms ?

Jeremy.