Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:34:23 -0800 From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <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 11:25 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > 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 The example you gave in PR is similar to https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg00456.html > 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. That is very unfortunate. I consider it is too late for x32 to change. -- H.J.
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.