From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/934 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Possible ARM struct stat problem. Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 01:03:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20120527230347.GK17860@port70.net> References: <2314318.NDqLURy4mK@main.pennware.com> <20120527194319.GF163@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 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1338159845 24396 80.91.229.3 (27 May 2012 23:04:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 23:04:05 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-935-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon May 28 01:04:04 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 1SYmVD-0005si-Vj for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 01:04:00 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 29917 invoked by uid 550); 27 May 2012 23:03:59 -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 29909 invoked from network); 27 May 2012 23:03:59 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120527194319.GF163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:934 Archived-At: * Rich Felker [2012-05-27 15:43:19 -0400]: > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 01:35:07PM -0500, Richard Pennington wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think a found a problem with the struct stat definition for the ARM. It > > needed a bit more padding. I've attached a diff and wrote about it on my blog > > if you'd like more information. > > > > http://ellcc.org/blog/?p=121 > > This looks like a clang bug. Per the ABI, long long has 8-byte > alignment on ARM. Thus, the structure definition musl has right now > will give the right layout to match the ABI, and in fact it works > perfectly when compiled with GCC. > > 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. > > Let me know what you find. hm i have an /usr/include/asm-generic/stat.h (kernel header) and it has a struct stat and struct stat64 and they seem to have different padding than the musl definition