zip64 compatibility problems

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Mon Jan 28 11:36:46 UTC 2013

On 26/01/2013 17:14, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> :
> Following up on this, I have a simple webrev:
> with an "obviously correct" fix.  However:
> - we need a bug filed
> - This change is completely untested.  I no longer have access to native
> 32-bit systems where this bug might be manifested.  I have not tried to
> actually provoke a failure, although it should not be too hard to create a
> 3GB jar file with the contents of interest at the end, on a system where
> off_t is signed 32-bit.
> - As we discussed, it might be better to have a JLI_Open (or even better,
> common C-level infrastructure for the whole project) but only you guys have
> access to the variety of systems to write and test such a thing, even if it
> is just a few lines of code.
> So next step here is up to you.
I've created a bug to track this first installation:

8006995: java launcher fails top en executable JAR > 2GB

I think the proposed changes are okay, a no-brainer really. It would be 
nice if the open were moved to platform specific code, then we could use 
open64 and drop O_LARGEFILE flag. That might be something for future 
refactoring (I think JLI_Open was suggested in an earlier mail).

Ideally we should have a test but we've had a lot of bad experience with 
files that need multi-GB zip files (slow, need lots of disk space) so I 
think it would be saner to leave it out this time.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list