[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:16:08 -0800
From: Dan Gohman <sunfish@...illa.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Bits deduplication: current situation
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote:
> * Dan Gohman <sunfish@...illa.com> [2016-01-25 21:03:54 -0800]:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote:
> > > * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2016-01-25 16:00:05 -0500]:
> > > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure int64_t is long on all LP64 targets we support. Are
> > > > there others that differ?
> > >
> >
> > I'm working on an architecture which does, though there's no musl support
> > for it currently.
> >
>
> in gcc stdint.h only depends on libc/os and sizeof(long),
> not on architecture.
>
> (e.g. openbsd uses long long, glibc uses long consistently
> for all LP64 arch abis.)
>
I've been assuming that, in the absence of compatibility constraints (for
example on a new architecture), it would be reasonable for hypothetical new
musl, glibc, or newlib ports to arrange to be ABI compatible at the level
of a freestanding implementation (in the C standard sense), which would
include <stdint.h>. Is this an incorrect assumption, from your perspective?
Dan
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
