mailing list of musl libc
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* [musl] __WORDSIZE on x32
@ 2021-11-23 19:51 Florian Weimer
  2021-11-23 20:14 ` Rich Felker
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2021-11-23 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: musl

This looks a bid suspicious:

arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#undef __WORDSIZE
arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#define __WORDSIZE 32
arch/x32/bits/user.h:#undef __WORDSIZE
arch/x32/bits/user.h:#define __WORDSIZE 64

I don't know if it causes any actual problems.  I discovered it while
checking whether musl defines/uses __WORDSIZE.

Thanks,
Florian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [musl] __WORDSIZE on x32
  2021-11-23 19:51 [musl] __WORDSIZE on x32 Florian Weimer
@ 2021-11-23 20:14 ` Rich Felker
  2021-11-23 20:22   ` Florian Weimer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rich Felker @ 2021-11-23 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: musl

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:51:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> This looks a bid suspicious:

Come on, you missed a chance to say "sus". :-)

> arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#undef __WORDSIZE
> arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#define __WORDSIZE 32
> arch/x32/bits/user.h:#undef __WORDSIZE
> arch/x32/bits/user.h:#define __WORDSIZE 64
> 
> I don't know if it causes any actual problems.  I discovered it while
> checking whether musl defines/uses __WORDSIZE.

Thanks for the find. Now... which is it supposed to be?

commit 664cd341921007cea52c8891f27ce35927dca378 introduced x32 as a
patch against a copy of x86_64 and changed one instance from 64 to 32,
so presumably the intent was to change both. Is this in agreement with
what it means on glibc or elsewhere?

Rich

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [musl] __WORDSIZE on x32
  2021-11-23 20:14 ` Rich Felker
@ 2021-11-23 20:22   ` Florian Weimer
  2022-03-08 21:59     ` Rich Felker
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2021-11-23 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rich Felker; +Cc: musl

* Rich Felker:

> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:51:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This looks a bid suspicious:
>
> Come on, you missed a chance to say "sus". :-)

Sorry?  I typo'ed “bit”, but that's not it?

>> arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#undef __WORDSIZE
>> arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#define __WORDSIZE 32
>> arch/x32/bits/user.h:#undef __WORDSIZE
>> arch/x32/bits/user.h:#define __WORDSIZE 64
>> 
>> I don't know if it causes any actual problems.  I discovered it while
>> checking whether musl defines/uses __WORDSIZE.
>
> Thanks for the find. Now... which is it supposed to be?
>
> commit 664cd341921007cea52c8891f27ce35927dca378 introduced x32 as a
> patch against a copy of x86_64 and changed one instance from 64 to 32,
> so presumably the intent was to change both. Is this in agreement with
> what it means on glibc or elsewhere?

glibc uses __WORDSIZE == 64 to differentiate x86-64 from x86-64-32, so
it should be 32 for x32.

However, arch/x32/bits/user.h looks written as if define __WORDSIZE to
64 changes the width of long to 64.  I think struct user_regs_struct
needs to have unsigned long long members on x32.  (It's what glibc uses
for both x86-64 and x86-64-32.)  Likewise a most of the members of
struct user.

Thanks,
Florian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [musl] __WORDSIZE on x32
  2021-11-23 20:22   ` Florian Weimer
@ 2022-03-08 21:59     ` Rich Felker
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rich Felker @ 2022-03-08 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: musl

OK, following up on this rather late...

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:22:24PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Rich Felker:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:51:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> This looks a bid suspicious:
> >
> > Come on, you missed a chance to say "sus". :-)
> 
> Sorry?  I typo'ed “bit”, but that's not it?

In the past year or two, "sus" has entered the vernacular for
gaming-related reasons. ;-)

> >> arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#undef __WORDSIZE
> >> arch/x32/bits/reg.h:#define __WORDSIZE 32
> >> arch/x32/bits/user.h:#undef __WORDSIZE
> >> arch/x32/bits/user.h:#define __WORDSIZE 64
> >> 
> >> I don't know if it causes any actual problems.  I discovered it while
> >> checking whether musl defines/uses __WORDSIZE.
> >
> > Thanks for the find. Now... which is it supposed to be?
> >
> > commit 664cd341921007cea52c8891f27ce35927dca378 introduced x32 as a
> > patch against a copy of x86_64 and changed one instance from 64 to 32,
> > so presumably the intent was to change both. Is this in agreement with
> > what it means on glibc or elsewhere?
> 
> glibc uses __WORDSIZE == 64 to differentiate x86-64 from x86-64-32, so
> it should be 32 for x32.

Fixing this now.

> However, arch/x32/bits/user.h looks written as if define __WORDSIZE to
> 64 changes the width of long to 64.  I think struct user_regs_struct
> needs to have unsigned long long members on x32.  (It's what glibc uses
> for both x86-64 and x86-64-32.)  Likewise a most of the members of
> struct user.

For user_regs_struct, it's pretty clear they need to be 64-bit. I'm
not sure about the long fields in struct user -- these may be 32-bit
on ELF32? Let's keep this part open until someone looks into it more.

Rich

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-03-08 22:00 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-11-23 19:51 [musl] __WORDSIZE on x32 Florian Weimer
2021-11-23 20:14 ` Rich Felker
2021-11-23 20:22   ` Florian Weimer
2022-03-08 21:59     ` Rich Felker

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).