[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:29:09 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add statx
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:10:40AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Rich Felker:
>
> >> That's why the kernel always uses unsigned long long for __u64, which
> >> seems a reasonable trade-off to me. It will make porting to 128-bit
> >> architectures difficult. But I think we should focus on the
> >> architectures we have today.
> >
> > I disagree strongly with the last sentence. Designing an *API* in a
> > way that's not compatible with anything but long long == 64-bit is bad
> > API design.
>
> We don't know what LL128 architectures will look like. For all we know,
> they might have more expressive type descriptors for variadic functions,
> so the whole issue of matching integer types with precise format
> specifiers becomes moot.
I don't follow. Mechanically the wrong format for long long vs
int64_t *already works*; the problem at hand is that per the
language, it's undefined, and rightly produces warnings. None of that
would go away if LL128 archs used a fancy variadic call mechanism.
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.
