From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1235 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Possible ARM struct stat problem. Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:01:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20120626030124.GI544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <2314318.NDqLURy4mK@main.pennware.com> <4FE91B3D.2010905@barfooze.de> <20120626025002.GH544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <19157184.cxXl8ahUNG@main.pennware.com> 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 1340679818 22376 80.91.229.3 (26 Jun 2012 03:03:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:03:38 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1236-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jun 26 05:03:38 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 1SjM3w-0005WK-Qf for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:03:32 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9855 invoked by uid 550); 26 Jun 2012 03:03:32 -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 9847 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2012 03:03:32 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19157184.cxXl8ahUNG@main.pennware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1235 Archived-At: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:52:02PM -0500, Richard Pennington wrote: > 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). > > > I agree with Rich on this one. I'm wondering if there's somewhere in the source I could put a static assertion to test for wrong ABI. Perhaps this belongs in the configure script (but I know *ahem* some folks don't run configure). Unfortunately the only C code that's arch-specific is in header files, and none of them really seem like the appropriate place for static assertions, so I'm not sure where to put it. Rich