Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 00:26:45 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] remaining steps for time64 switchover On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:46:43PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > demonstrably working). The one omission I'm aware of is what to do > with struct utmpx, which is not actually used at present in any libc > interfaces and thus not part of the ABI surface of libc. That will be > addressed in a separate thread. Or here. So, the story on utmpx: we can either 1. match the current size on 32-bit archs, but move the timeval to unused space at the end where a time64 version fits, or 2. match the current size and layout of the 64-bit struct, making it possible to share records between 32- and 64-bit processes on the same machine. Keep in mind that this struct is not used anywhere in libc presently, but normally it's used as a format for on-disk records. I'm kinda leaning towards option 2, but being that I don't use (and hate) utmp, I'd rather hear opinions from people who do use it. Either way time fields in existing data will break, so it's a question of whether that one-time breakage is already sufficient to go a bit further and get 32/64 compat afterwards. 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.