[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3 00/24] ILP32 support in ARM64
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rich Felker <> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 at 16:52:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> > New version with all of the requested changes. Updated to the
>> > latest sources.
>> >
>> > Notable changes from the previous versions:
>> > VDSO code has been factored out to be easier to understand and
>> > easier to maintain.
>> > Move the config option to the last thing that gets added.
>> > Added some extra COMPAT_* macros for core dumping for easier usage.
>> Apart from a few comments I've made, I would also like to see non-empty
>> commit logs and long line wrapping (both in commit logs and
>> Documentation/). Otherwise, the patches look fine.
>> So what are the next steps? Are the glibc folk ok with the ILP32 Linux
>> ABI? On the kernel side, what I would like to see:
> I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
> I think we need to open a discussion of how it relates to open glibc
> bug #16437, which presently applies only to x32 (ILP32 ABI on x86_64):

Please leave x32 out of this discussion. I have resolved this bug

> While most of the other type changes proposed (I'm looking at
> are permissible and simply
> ugly/undesirable, defining struct timespec with tv_nsec having any
> type other than long conflicts with the requirements of C11 and POSIX,
> and WG14 is unlikely to be interested in changing the C language
> because the Linux kernel has the wrong type in timespec.
> Note that on aarch64 ILP32, the consequences of not fixing this right
> away will be much worse than on x32, since aarch64 (at least as I
> understand it) supports big endian where it's not just a matter of
> sign-extending the value from userspace and ignoring the padding, but
> rather changing the offset of the tv_nsec member.
> Working around the discrepencies in userspace IS possible, but ugly.
> We do it in musl libc for x32 right now -- see:

You are free to do what you feel appropriate. I have no plans
to change x32 on this in glibc at this moment.

> I imagine the workarounds in glibc might need to be considerably more
> widespread and uglier.
> Whatever happens on the kernel side, this needs to be coordinated with
> userspace (glibc, etc.) properly so that the type error (glibc bug
> 16437) is not propagated into a new target that we actually want
> people to use. I'd really like it if other undesirable type changes
> could be cleaned up too, but perhaps that's too much to ask from the
> kernel side.
> Rich


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-11 19:41    [W:0.146 / U:1.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site