Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:27:03 +0100 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] ILP32 for ARM64 |
| |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 01:19:14PM +0200, Dr. Philipp Tomsich wrote: > Just for the record (and to avoid anyone wasting their time on what’s available > today): we are migrating this over to option (a) now, even though we would > prefer to see option (b) implemented. > > If we get a consensus on (b) in the next couple of days, we’ll redo things for > option (b). If not, we will have an implementation for option (a) available that > we can hopefully all agree on merging.
When you post, please include the libc-alpha list (I think they are fine with cross-posting), maybe only for the cover letter as that's where the useful discussion seems to happen.
It's interesting to re-read some older posts on x32 (it's not just time_t affected, though probably that the most visible):
https://lwn.net/Articles/457089/ https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg00487.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg00574.html
Basically for x32 POSIX compliance doesn't seem too critical. IIUC, the x32 wasn't added to solve a 32-bit compatibility problem but as a potential optimisation for specific cases.
On ARM OTOH, (one of?) the main goal for AArch64 ILP32 is to offer a solution for 32-bit code when AArch32 is not present (and potentially slightly more optimal than AArch32 but not necessarily when compared to LP64).
-- Catalin
|  |