From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 26602 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2023 10:47:49 -0000
Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 18 Apr 2023 10:47:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 4080 invoked by uid 550); 18 Apr 2023 10:47:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 4048 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2023 10:47:45 -0000
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:47:31 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
To: =?utf-8?B?546L5rSq5Lqu?= <wanghongliang@loongson.cn>,
	musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20230418104731.GQ3630668@port70.net>
Mail-Followup-To: =?utf-8?B?546L5rSq5Lqu?= <wanghongliang@loongson.cn>,
	musl@lists.openwall.com
References: <a5e11238-0da1-7ce2-c61b-11980a430f1d@loongson.cn>
 <20230418093844.GP3630668@port70.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20230418093844.GP3630668@port70.net>
Subject: Re: [musl] add loongarch64 port v7.

* Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> [2023-04-18 11:38:44 +0200]:
> * =E7=8E=8B=E6=B4=AA=E4=BA=AE <wanghongliang@loongson.cn> [2023-04-18 09:=
28:49 +0800]:
> > +typedef struct {
> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 unsigned long __pc;
> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 unsigned long __gregs[32];
> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 unsigned int __flags;
> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 unsigned long __extcontext[] __attribute__((__align=
ed__(16)));
> > =C2=A0} mcontext_t;
>=20
> i would use the same struct tag as glibc so
>=20
> typedef struct mcontext_t { ...
>=20
> (we don't need c++ abi compat with glibc, but
> it's nicer to be consistent)

sorry this is wrong, c++ abi is same for

  typedef struct foo {} foo;

and

  typedef struct {} foo;

so we don't need to change the code to match glibc:
untagged struct types use the typename for mangling
so it's mcontext_t either way.