Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 21:22:24 +0100 From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: __WORDSIZE on x32 * Rich Felker: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:51:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> This looks a bid suspicious: > > Come on, you missed a chance to say "sus". :-) Sorry? I typo'ed “bit”, but that's not it? >> arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#undef __WORDSIZE >> arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#define __WORDSIZE 32 >> arch/x32/bits/user.h:#undef __WORDSIZE >> arch/x32/bits/user.h:#define __WORDSIZE 64 >> >> I don't know if it causes any actual problems. I discovered it while >> checking whether musl defines/uses __WORDSIZE. > > Thanks for the find. Now... which is it supposed to be? > > commit 664cd341921007cea52c8891f27ce35927dca378 introduced x32 as a > patch against a copy of x86_64 and changed one instance from 64 to 32, > so presumably the intent was to change both. Is this in agreement with > what it means on glibc or elsewhere? glibc uses __WORDSIZE == 64 to differentiate x86-64 from x86-64-32, so it should be 32 for x32. However, arch/x32/bits/user.h looks written as if define __WORDSIZE to 64 changes the width of long to 64. I think struct user_regs_struct needs to have unsigned long long members on x32. (It's what glibc uses for both x86-64 and x86-64-32.) Likewise a most of the members of struct user. Thanks, Florian
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.