Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:25:58 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com, GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org> Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 00/24] ILP32 support in ARM64 On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:16:58AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but > >> > I think we need to open a discussion of how it relates to open glibc > >> > bug #16437, which presently applies only to x32 (ILP32 ABI on x86_64): > >> > > >> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16437 > >> > >> Please leave x32 out of this discussion. I have resolved this bug > >> as WONTFIX. > > > > From the glibc side, I thought things went by a consensus process > > these days, not the old WONTFIX regime of he who shall not be named. > > If this is not fixed for x32, then x32 cannot provide a conforming C > > environment and thus it's rather a toy target. But I think we should > > discuss this on libc-alpha. In the mean time please leave it REOPENED. > > As I said in PR, the issue has been raised in Mar, 2012 when the > x32 port was submitted. It has been decided that x32 won't conform > to tv_nsec, blksize_t, and suseconds_t as long. I don't believe we > will change them to conform to POSIX. I briefly reviewed that discussion and I think the decision made was about an obscure POSIX requirement about supporting at least one compilation environment where certain types have rank <= long. This is trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate compilation environments, but it's not related to the core issue: that the definition of timespec violates core (not obscure) requirements of both POSIX and C11. At the time you were probably unaware of the C11 requirement. Note that it's a LOT harder to effect change in the C standard, so even if the Austin Group would be amenable to changing the requirement for timespec to allow something like nseconds_t, getting WG14 to make this change to work around a Linux/glibc mistake does not sound practical. Rich
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.