Re: [PATCH] remaining steps for time64 switchover

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:43:35AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:46:43PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >From 31aae539d35550a3db0641f25d16968ed6a0702c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
> > Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 19:24:53 -0400
> > Subject: [PATCH 17/17] switch powerpc to 64-bit time_t
> > 
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/arch.mak           |  1 +
> >  arch/powerpc/bits/alltypes.h.in |  5 +++--
> >  arch/powerpc/bits/ipcstat.h     |  2 +-
> >  arch/powerpc/bits/msg.h         | 15 +++++++++------
> >  arch/powerpc/bits/sem.h         | 10 ++++++----
> >  arch/powerpc/bits/shm.h         | 16 +++++++++-------
> >  arch/powerpc/bits/stat.h        |  6 +++++-
> >  7 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/arch.mak
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/arch.mak b/arch/powerpc/arch.mak
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..aa4d05ce
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/arch.mak
> > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > +COMPAT_SRC_DIRS = compat/time32
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/bits/alltypes.h.in b/arch/powerpc/bits/alltypes.h.in
> > index fd0c816c..8e003545 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/bits/alltypes.h.in
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/bits/alltypes.h.in
> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> > +#define _REDIR_TIME64 1
> >  #define _Addr int
> >  #define _Int64 long long
> >  #define _Reg int
> > @@ -18,5 +19,5 @@ TYPEDEF double double_t;
> >  
> >  TYPEDEF struct { long long __ll; long double __ld; } max_align_t;
> >  
> > -TYPEDEF long time_t;
> > -TYPEDEF long suseconds_t;
> > +TYPEDEF long long time_t;
> > +TYPEDEF long long suseconds_t;
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/bits/ipcstat.h b/arch/powerpc/bits/ipcstat.h
> > index 0018ad1e..4f4fcb0c 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/bits/ipcstat.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/bits/ipcstat.h
> > @@ -1 +1 @@
> > -#define IPC_STAT 2
> > +#define IPC_STAT 0x102
> 
> This could actually be dropped for powerpc...
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/bits/msg.h b/arch/powerpc/bits/msg.h
> > index 171c11a3..9fb15dcc 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/bits/msg.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/bits/msg.h
> > @@ -1,15 +1,18 @@
> >  struct msqid_ds {
> >  	struct ipc_perm msg_perm;
> > -	int __unused1;
> > -	time_t msg_stime;
> > -	int __unused2;
> > -	time_t msg_rtime;
> > -	int __unused3;
> > -	time_t msg_ctime;
> > +	unsigned long __msg_stime_hi;
> > +	unsigned long __msg_stime_lo;
> > +	unsigned long __msg_rtime_hi;
> > +	unsigned long __msg_rtime_lo;
> > +	unsigned long __msg_ctime_hi;
> > +	unsigned long __msg_ctime_lo;
> 
> by making this just:
> 
> > +	time_t msg_stime;
> > +	time_t msg_rtime;
> > +	time_t msg_ctime;
> 
> since the alignments and endianness are correct (I'm pretty sure
> they're correct for all 3 structs). Any ppc folks want to confirm
> that?
> 
> It's not a big deal either way but would be slightly "nicer".

If there's any possibility of having a little-endian 32-bit powerpc
target, then I think it's probably best not to do this -- it would
have to be backed out conditional on endianness.

Rich