RFR: 8318696: Do not use LFS64 symbols on Linux

[David Holmes]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 06:38:38 GMT, Sam James <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> My preference for moving forward is:
>
> 1.  I add some static_assert for off_t to the modified JVM bits to be safe (that's what I tested with);
> 2.  We keep this PR for the build-only fixes which are semantically identical to the previous code - this PR currently "preserves" bitness, it doesn't fix anything other than avoiding use of foo64() where it's unnecessary by converting to foo, but the foo64() use was right - just a glibcism - until now. From what I can tell, the JVM code touched here was correct, just relying on glibcisms;
> 3. In another PR, we look at the general 32-bit LFS situation which may involve runtime fixes if - as it appears - off_t is actually 32-bit on x86 systems right now and non foo64() functions are being used. Then we either port more stuff to use foo64() (not ideal), or consistently use foo() in more places with FILE_OFFSET_BITS.

I'm unclear how the current PR is expected to proceed under this plan. Does # 2 also keep the source code changes in this PR? Should the asserts from # 1 also be added to this PR?

This issue is now hitting hard on Alpine Linux 3.19 - see [JDK-8324153](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324153)

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16329#issuecomment-1899810531