[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:16:52 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: glibc vs musl sizeof types
i did sizeof comparisions of most structs on i386, x86_64, mips, arm, powerpc
using embedian cross compilers vs musl-cross
(embedian toolchain is old though: gcc-4.4, glibc-2.13, binutils-2.20)
http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=musl-tables;a=blob;f=data/sizeof.arm.diff
http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=musl-tables;a=blob;f=data/sizeof.i386.diff
http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=musl-tables;a=blob;f=data/sizeof.mips.diff
http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=musl-tables;a=blob;f=data/sizeof.powerpc.diff
http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=musl-tables;a=blob;f=data/sizeof.x86_64.diff
struct rusage and struct sysinfo are known to have
extra space on musl, struct tftphdr is not "packed"
on musl and struct crypt_data is huge on glibc
other diffs may or may not be an issue
the test code if you want to try it on other arch:
http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=musl-tables;a=blob;f=sizeof.c
struct user_* are not avail on most archs (other than x86)
nor sys/reg.h so those should be commented out
(cflags is -std=gnu99, the diff is diff -U1 glibc musl >sizeof.diff)
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.
