[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: x32 and width of blksize_t, suseconds_t
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> On 03/16/2012 01:19 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Come to think of it, the proposed x32 patch may have issues
> > with blksize_t and suseconds_t as well. POSIX says that an x32
> > implementation must support at least one programming environment
> > (presumably settable via a feature test macro) where blksize_t
> > and suseconds_t are no wider than 'long'; see
> > <>.
> > But if I understand things correctly, x32 glibc would
> > define these to be 'long long'. This issue affects system
> > calls such as 'stat' and 'select'.
> That's just not going to happen, sorry. Why on Earth is this a
> requirement? It makes no sense whatsoever.

It's probably to support code written for C90. Note that it's the
POSIX-conforming system as a whole that is to support such an environment
- but it might be an environment that uses the traditional 32-bit or
64-bit ABIs, it needn't be one using the x32 ABI. "getconf
POSIX_V7_WIDTH_RESTRICTED_ENVS" must print the names of the environments
meeting this requirement; if one is "POSIX_V7_ILP32_OFF32", for example,
then "getconf POSIX_V7_ILP32_OFF32_CFLAGS" will print the flags (maybe
-m32) and likewise for _LDFLAGS and _LIBS. In glibc this means defining
appropriate macros in bits/environment.h to give the right flags - and
also probably changing posix/confstr.c which has comments saying
"Currently this means all environment which the system allows." (the x32
patch series may need to adjust this in some way).

Joseph S. Myers

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-16 15:49    [W:0.049 / U:6.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site