AW: [PATCH 5/5] Bionic lacks transparent LFS migrations; provide a workaround

[Matt Whitlock]

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015, at 6:36 am, dietmar.schindler at manroland-web.com wrote:
> Whose policy is that which caters to a certain compiler option's inept warnings? "What are the goals of Busybox?" (http://www.busybox.net/FAQ.html#goals) says: "We also want to have the simplest and cleanest implementation we can manage..." - I wouldn't say that
> 
> #if defined(__BIONIC__) && defined(_FILE_OFFSET_BITS) && _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64
> 
> is as simple and clean as
> 
> #if defined(__BIONIC__) && _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64

I originally had it as you suggest, without the redundant check, but I saw the compiler warning and added the extra check to avoid the warning. Frankly, I consider having no warnings to be "cleaner," even if I have to add a little bit of visual noise to the code.