From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1233 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Pennington Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Possible ARM struct stat problem. Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:52:02 -0500 Message-ID: <19157184.cxXl8ahUNG@main.pennware.com> References: <2314318.NDqLURy4mK@main.pennware.com> <4FE91B3D.2010905@barfooze.de> <20120626025002.GH544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1340679265 19332 80.91.229.3 (26 Jun 2012 02:54:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:54:25 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1234-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jun 26 04:54:25 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SjLv2-000522-N5 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:54:20 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5474 invoked by uid 550); 26 Jun 2012 02:54:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 5466 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2012 02:54:20 -0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=bpjO9Tmi c=1 sm=0 a=/l7PkcR/UKDnn7Q2wmGJww==:17 a=hdNgKtvFP3AA:10 a=Yh9pX-vuAvQA:10 a=5UDJ85XU0lMA:10 a=msTO8fkKGJEA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=N4Ps669bAAAA:8 a=DTdMml7JDxH2jI0jjCwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=/l7PkcR/UKDnn7Q2wmGJww==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 65.26.59.215 User-Agent: KMail/4.8.3 (Linux/3.3.8-1.fc16.x86_64; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20120626025002.GH544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1233 Archived-At: On Monday, June 25, 2012 10:50:02 PM Rich Felker wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:15:25AM +0200, John Spencer wrote: > > >I'm not entirely opposed to putting the explicit padding in there, > > >since this is an arch-specific structure anyway, but I think you > > >should check your compiler. The same issue might come up elsewhere and > > >might not be so easy to work around. > > > > please apply the explicit padding. > > All this would have done is hide the issue that you're using the wrong > ABI (oabi instead of eabi) and make it harder to find the more-subtle > resulting bugs later (mildly different calling convention and > padding). > > Rich I agree with Rich on this one. -Rich