Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:13:51 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: sign (in)consistency between architectures * Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr> [2013-05-02 10:12:39 +0200]: > I would prefer to have both worlds by using uint64_t (or directly the > underlying base type) uniformly. There is no reason to have it signed: > yes probably that's the best solution but note that even that can hurt: i've seen code like t = (double)clock(); (eg the time module in python does this) where interesting low bits may get lost if clock_t is uint64_t this might be common because clock_t is permitted to be a floating-point type of course this should not be a problem if the cast is applied to the difference only (other than uint64->double conversion is usually much slower than int32->double conversion) ..but this issue is present on 64bit platforms anyway siginfo is affected as well: clock_t is used in the union in it which i think is aligned with glibc now but i'm not against the uint64_t solution if we decide breaking glibc abi here is ok
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.