Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754352AbbBKT03 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:26:29 -0500 Received: from 216-12-86-13.cv.mvl.ntelos.net ([216.12.86.13]:36954 "EHLO brightrain.aerifal.cx" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753445AbbBKT02 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:26:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:25:58 -0500 From: Rich Felker To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Catalin Marinas , Andrew Pinski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, LKML , Andrew Pinski , musl@lists.openwall.com, GNU C Library Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 00/24] ILP32 support in ARM64 Message-ID: <20150211192558.GE23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20141002155217.GH32147@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150210181302.GA23886@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150211190252.GB23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2093 Lines: 40 On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:16:58AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> > 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): > >> > > >> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16437 > >> > >> 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. I briefly reviewed that discussion and I think the decision made was about an obscure POSIX requirement about supporting at least one compilation environment where certain types have rank <= long. This is trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate compilation environments, but it's not related to the core issue: that the definition of timespec violates core (not obscure) requirements of both POSIX and C11. At the time you were probably unaware of the C11 requirement. Note that it's a LOT harder to effect change in the C standard, so even if the Austin Group would be amenable to changing the requirement for timespec to allow something like nseconds_t, getting WG14 to make this change to work around a Linux/glibc mistake does not sound practical. Rich -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/