This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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]


On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:

> On 22/10/2018 18:45, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> > 
> >> I think we should XFAIL for both 32-bit and 64-bit, siginfo_t is passed
> > 
> > Since long int and int have the same size for 32-bit, I see no need to 
> > XFAIL there when you can just use the proper POSIX type without affecting 
> > the layout.
> > 
> I see your point, I would just like to keep documented that for SPARC there
> is this small divergence between POSIX and kernel definition.

I think XFAILing for such conform/ test assertions is only for the cases 
where the issue is hard to fix - not where the bad type can be replaced by 
the standard one with no change of layout involved.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


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