Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 May 2008 03:33:15 +0300 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] asm-generic/int-ll64.h: always provide __{s,u}64 |
| |
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 05:17:31PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:51:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> Adrian Bunk wrote: >>>>> If it is going to be unconditionally offered, we could get rid of >>>>> __BYTEORDER_HAS_U64__ as a next step. Unless there is something I've >>>>> missed. >>>> Why do we need the byteorder headers in userspace at all? >>>> >>> Because Linux-specific software has depended on them for over 15 >>> years (they are a much better API than anything POSIX provides.) We >>> can't just yank them, and so it's better if they actually work. >>> >>> Yes, you can argue it should be glibc's job to provide them, but >>> well, why duplicate work when we already have a nicely working set. >> >> The worst thing is how many CONFIG_'s they currently leak to userspace. >> >> And e.g. the versions in the x86 header are therefore not the fastest >> ones (unless the userspace software #define's CONFIG_X86_BSWAP)... >> > > This is a valid point. This should be __i486__ for userspace, which is > gcc's way to tell you if you're compiling with -march=i486.
This doesn't help if you're compiling with e.g. -march=pentium
> -hpa
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
| |