This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] signal: Use correct type for si_band in siginfo_t [BZ #23562]

* Joseph Myers:

> This has broken the conform/ tests for SPARC, so that you now get:
> FAIL: conform/POSIX2008/signal.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/POSIX2008/sys/wait.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/UNIX98/signal.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/UNIX98/sys/wait.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/XOPEN2K/signal.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/XOPEN2K/sys/wait.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/XOPEN2K8/signal.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/XOPEN2K8/sys/wait.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/XPG42/signal.h/conform
> FAIL: conform/XPG42/sys/wait.h/conform
> because si_band no longer has the POSIX-specified type.

Sorry about that.

> For 32-bit SPARC you should be able to use long int and so avoid the 
> failures, as that won't change the layout.

Okay, that makes sense.

> For 64-bit SPARC this would be a case where the kernel having the
> wrong type means you need an appropriately conditioned and commented
> XFAIL in signal.h-data and sys/wait.h-data (and appropriately
> conditioned and commented conformtest-xfail-conds definition in a
> relevant sysdeps Makefile to define the condition that's used in the
> conform/ data changes).

Why wasn't this a problem before
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/types/siginfo_t.h was split out?  SPARC
clearly had int as the type of si_band back then.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]