From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4499 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luca Barbato Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Discussion of partly-invasive changes needed for x32 port Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:43:36 +0100 Message-ID: <52DCE1B8.3020100@gentoo.org> References: <20140120074131.GA3529@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390207418 13779 80.91.229.3 (20 Jan 2014 08:43:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:43:38 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4503-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Jan 20 09:43:46 2014 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 1W5ASO-0007hs-3g for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:43:44 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 15616 invoked by uid 550); 20 Jan 2014 08:43:42 -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 15608 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2014 08:43:41 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: <20140120074131.GA3529@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4499 Archived-At: On 20/01/14 08:41, Rich Felker wrote: > Adding the workaround code at every syscall point is ugly, and > possibly error-prone. An alternate possible solution is hacking up the > syscall macros in syscall_arch.h to detect "const struct timespec *" > arguments and auto-wrap them with compound literals that would fix-up > the padding. However this probably requires either C11 or GNU C > extensions. On the positive side, it would only affect x32; no changes > at all would be made to the source files or other archs' > syscall_arch.h logic. Can a compiler supporting x32 be safely expected to support C11 ? If yes sounds the best route. lu