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: [PATCHv3 00/24] ILP32 support in ARM64

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Rich Felker <> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:33:32AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> 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
>> as WONTFIX.
> From the glibc side, I thought things went by a consensus process
> these days, not the old WONTFIX regime of he who shall not be named.
> If this is not fixed for x32, then x32 cannot provide a conforming C
> environment and thus it's rather a toy target. But I think we should
> discuss this on libc-alpha. In the mean time please leave it REOPENED.

As I said in PR,  the issue has been raised in Mar, 2012 when the
x32 port was submitted.  It has been decided that x32 won't conform
to tv_nsec, blksize_t, and suseconds_t as long.  I don't believe we
will change them to conform to POSIX.

As for if x32 is a toy target or not, it will be decided by whether it
delivers what users are looking for, not by if tv_nsec, blksize_t, and
suseconds_t conform to POSIX.


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