From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1234 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Spencer Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Possible ARM struct stat problem. Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:12:02 +0200 Message-ID: <4FE92882.1030503@barfooze.de> References: <2314318.NDqLURy4mK@main.pennware.com> <20120527194319.GF163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1340679712 21821 80.91.229.3 (26 Jun 2012 03:01:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:01:52 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1235-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jun 26 05:01:52 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 1SjM2G-0003oT-DF for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:01:48 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9424 invoked by uid 550); 26 Jun 2012 03:01:48 -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 9416 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2012 03:01:48 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 SUSE/3.1.8 Mail/1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120626025002.GH544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1234 Archived-At: On 06/26/2012 04:50 AM, 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 > indeed. i'm trying to fix the toolchain by passing an explicit --target=arm-linux-gnueabi to configure. since ARM toolchains appear to full of such hidden traps, i vote +1 for adding some assertions that the right ABI is used.