This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC v3 12/23] RISC-V: define __vdso_clock_gettime as __vdso_clock_gettime64 for 32-bit
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:16 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:12 AM Alistair Francis
> <alistair.francis@wdc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
> > ---
> > sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/sysdep.h | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/sysdep.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/sysdep.h
> > index e66e9f032a..ea47b9b82c 100644
> > --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/sysdep.h
> > +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/sysdep.h
> > @@ -171,6 +171,10 @@
> > # ifndef __vdso_clock_getres
> > # define __vdso_clock_getres __vdso_clock_getres_time64
> > # endif
> > +
> > +# ifndef __vdso_clock_gettime
> > +# define __vdso_clock_gettime __vdso_clock_gettime64
> > +# endif
> > #endif /* __riscv_xlen == 32 */
>
>
> I had not noticed this when commenting on the other patches. What is
> the purpose of doing this?
>
> As mentioned, I don't think we should have __vdso_clock_getres_time64()
> at all (no caller cares about this being fast).
> The "#define__vdso_clock_gettime __vdso_clock_gettime64" should
> be harmless but leads to confusion because other architectures that
> have both cannot do this.
These were required to avoid build failures, but I think I have a
better solution and have removed these patches.
Alistair
>
> Arnd