* stat64 on mips
@ 2013-12-30 18:20 Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 21:29 ` Rich Felker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Justin Cormack @ 2013-12-30 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
MIPS is the most confusing architecture, but as far as I can make out,
the definition of struct stat64 that Musl has is probably the right
one for mips n32 but wrong for mips o32 which should be
struct stat {
unsigned long st_dev;
unsigned long __st_pad0[3];
unsigned long long st_ino;
mode_t st_mode;
nlink_t st_nlink;
uid_t st_uid;
gid_t st_gid;
unsigned long st_rdev;
unsigned long __st_pad1[3];
long long st_size;
time_t st_atime;
unsigned long st_atime_nsec;
time_t st_mtime;
unsigned long st_mtime_nsec;
time_t st_ctime;
unsigned long st_ctime_nsec;
unsigned long st_blksize;
unsigned long __st_pad2;
long long st_blocks;
};
It does appear that the syscalls for the two ABIs differ in this...
Justin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: stat64 on mips
2013-12-30 18:20 stat64 on mips Justin Cormack
@ 2013-12-30 21:29 ` Rich Felker
2013-12-30 22:02 ` Justin Cormack
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rich Felker @ 2013-12-30 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:20:46PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
> MIPS is the most confusing architecture, but as far as I can make out,
> the definition of struct stat64 that Musl has is probably the right
> one for mips n32 but wrong for mips o32 which should be
>
> struct stat {
> unsigned long st_dev;
> unsigned long __st_pad0[3];
> unsigned long long st_ino;
> mode_t st_mode;
> nlink_t st_nlink;
> uid_t st_uid;
> gid_t st_gid;
> unsigned long st_rdev;
> unsigned long __st_pad1[3];
> long long st_size;
> time_t st_atime;
> unsigned long st_atime_nsec;
> time_t st_mtime;
> unsigned long st_mtime_nsec;
> time_t st_ctime;
> unsigned long st_ctime_nsec;
> unsigned long st_blksize;
> unsigned long __st_pad2;
> long long st_blocks;
> };
>
> It does appear that the syscalls for the two ABIs differ in this...
This structure is identical to the one in musl except that it has
32-bit dev_t plus padding in place of 64-bit dev_t, and the musl
version has reserved space at the end. Can you check whether the dev_t
issue is actually a problem (it might be, based on endianness, and if
so I think it would require ugly fixups in userspace)?
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: stat64 on mips
2013-12-30 21:29 ` Rich Felker
@ 2013-12-30 22:02 ` Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 22:03 ` Rich Felker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Justin Cormack @ 2013-12-30 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:20:46PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> MIPS is the most confusing architecture, but as far as I can make out,
>> the definition of struct stat64 that Musl has is probably the right
>> one for mips n32 but wrong for mips o32 which should be
>>
>> struct stat {
>> unsigned long st_dev;
>> unsigned long __st_pad0[3];
>> unsigned long long st_ino;
>> mode_t st_mode;
>> nlink_t st_nlink;
>> uid_t st_uid;
>> gid_t st_gid;
>> unsigned long st_rdev;
>> unsigned long __st_pad1[3];
>> long long st_size;
>> time_t st_atime;
>> unsigned long st_atime_nsec;
>> time_t st_mtime;
>> unsigned long st_mtime_nsec;
>> time_t st_ctime;
>> unsigned long st_ctime_nsec;
>> unsigned long st_blksize;
>> unsigned long __st_pad2;
>> long long st_blocks;
>> };
>>
>> It does appear that the syscalls for the two ABIs differ in this...
>
> This structure is identical to the one in musl except that it has
> 32-bit dev_t plus padding in place of 64-bit dev_t, and the musl
> version has reserved space at the end. Can you check whether the dev_t
> issue is actually a problem (it might be, based on endianness, and if
> so I think it would require ugly fixups in userspace)?
Ah no, my mistake, you are right, the padding seems correct and I was
getting confused as usual by dev_t. However the 64 bit dev_t is a
problem on bigendian mips.
(Whats the reason for Musl using 64 bit dev_t? glibc compatibility?)
justin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: stat64 on mips
2013-12-30 22:02 ` Justin Cormack
@ 2013-12-30 22:03 ` Rich Felker
2013-12-30 22:10 ` Justin Cormack
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rich Felker @ 2013-12-30 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:02:19PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:20:46PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
> >> MIPS is the most confusing architecture, but as far as I can make out,
> >> the definition of struct stat64 that Musl has is probably the right
> >> one for mips n32 but wrong for mips o32 which should be
> >>
> >> struct stat {
> >> unsigned long st_dev;
> >> unsigned long __st_pad0[3];
> >> unsigned long long st_ino;
> >> mode_t st_mode;
> >> nlink_t st_nlink;
> >> uid_t st_uid;
> >> gid_t st_gid;
> >> unsigned long st_rdev;
> >> unsigned long __st_pad1[3];
> >> long long st_size;
> >> time_t st_atime;
> >> unsigned long st_atime_nsec;
> >> time_t st_mtime;
> >> unsigned long st_mtime_nsec;
> >> time_t st_ctime;
> >> unsigned long st_ctime_nsec;
> >> unsigned long st_blksize;
> >> unsigned long __st_pad2;
> >> long long st_blocks;
> >> };
> >>
> >> It does appear that the syscalls for the two ABIs differ in this...
> >
> > This structure is identical to the one in musl except that it has
> > 32-bit dev_t plus padding in place of 64-bit dev_t, and the musl
> > version has reserved space at the end. Can you check whether the dev_t
> > issue is actually a problem (it might be, based on endianness, and if
> > so I think it would require ugly fixups in userspace)?
>
> Ah no, my mistake, you are right, the padding seems correct and I was
> getting confused as usual by dev_t. However the 64 bit dev_t is a
> problem on bigendian mips.
>
> (Whats the reason for Musl using 64 bit dev_t? glibc compatibility?)
And room for expansion, and consistency of the type between archs.
There's no justification for dev_t or similar types to be
arch-specific.
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: stat64 on mips
2013-12-30 22:03 ` Rich Felker
@ 2013-12-30 22:10 ` Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 22:13 ` Rich Felker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Justin Cormack @ 2013-12-30 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:02:19PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:20:46PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> >> MIPS is the most confusing architecture, but as far as I can make out,
>> >> the definition of struct stat64 that Musl has is probably the right
>> >> one for mips n32 but wrong for mips o32 which should be
>> >>
>> >> struct stat {
>> >> unsigned long st_dev;
>> >> unsigned long __st_pad0[3];
>> >> unsigned long long st_ino;
>> >> mode_t st_mode;
>> >> nlink_t st_nlink;
>> >> uid_t st_uid;
>> >> gid_t st_gid;
>> >> unsigned long st_rdev;
>> >> unsigned long __st_pad1[3];
>> >> long long st_size;
>> >> time_t st_atime;
>> >> unsigned long st_atime_nsec;
>> >> time_t st_mtime;
>> >> unsigned long st_mtime_nsec;
>> >> time_t st_ctime;
>> >> unsigned long st_ctime_nsec;
>> >> unsigned long st_blksize;
>> >> unsigned long __st_pad2;
>> >> long long st_blocks;
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> It does appear that the syscalls for the two ABIs differ in this...
>> >
>> > This structure is identical to the one in musl except that it has
>> > 32-bit dev_t plus padding in place of 64-bit dev_t, and the musl
>> > version has reserved space at the end. Can you check whether the dev_t
>> > issue is actually a problem (it might be, based on endianness, and if
>> > so I think it would require ugly fixups in userspace)?
>>
>> Ah no, my mistake, you are right, the padding seems correct and I was
>> getting confused as usual by dev_t. However the 64 bit dev_t is a
>> problem on bigendian mips.
>>
>> (Whats the reason for Musl using 64 bit dev_t? glibc compatibility?)
>
> And room for expansion, and consistency of the type between archs.
> There's no justification for dev_t or similar types to be
> arch-specific.
But isnt the kernel dev_t 32 bit for all archs?
Justin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: stat64 on mips
2013-12-30 22:10 ` Justin Cormack
@ 2013-12-30 22:13 ` Rich Felker
2013-12-30 22:15 ` Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 22:53 ` Justin Cormack
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rich Felker @ 2013-12-30 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:10:59PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:02:19PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:20:46PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
> >> >> MIPS is the most confusing architecture, but as far as I can make out,
> >> >> the definition of struct stat64 that Musl has is probably the right
> >> >> one for mips n32 but wrong for mips o32 which should be
> >> >>
> >> >> struct stat {
> >> >> unsigned long st_dev;
> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad0[3];
> >> >> unsigned long long st_ino;
> >> >> mode_t st_mode;
> >> >> nlink_t st_nlink;
> >> >> uid_t st_uid;
> >> >> gid_t st_gid;
> >> >> unsigned long st_rdev;
> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad1[3];
> >> >> long long st_size;
> >> >> time_t st_atime;
> >> >> unsigned long st_atime_nsec;
> >> >> time_t st_mtime;
> >> >> unsigned long st_mtime_nsec;
> >> >> time_t st_ctime;
> >> >> unsigned long st_ctime_nsec;
> >> >> unsigned long st_blksize;
> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad2;
> >> >> long long st_blocks;
> >> >> };
> >> >>
> >> >> It does appear that the syscalls for the two ABIs differ in this...
> >> >
> >> > This structure is identical to the one in musl except that it has
> >> > 32-bit dev_t plus padding in place of 64-bit dev_t, and the musl
> >> > version has reserved space at the end. Can you check whether the dev_t
> >> > issue is actually a problem (it might be, based on endianness, and if
> >> > so I think it would require ugly fixups in userspace)?
> >>
> >> Ah no, my mistake, you are right, the padding seems correct and I was
> >> getting confused as usual by dev_t. However the 64 bit dev_t is a
> >> problem on bigendian mips.
> >>
> >> (Whats the reason for Musl using 64 bit dev_t? glibc compatibility?)
> >
> > And room for expansion, and consistency of the type between archs.
> > There's no justification for dev_t or similar types to be
> > arch-specific.
>
> But isnt the kernel dev_t 32 bit for all archs?
Yes and no. They have adjacent padding reserved to make it up to
128-bit, despite the fact that intmax_t is 64-bit everywhere and thus
128-bit types can't really be used. I suspect on big-endian the
padding is at the other side to allow for this already, but it might
be misaligned with respect to the 64/128 bit size in musl at present.
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: stat64 on mips
2013-12-30 22:13 ` Rich Felker
@ 2013-12-30 22:15 ` Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 22:53 ` Justin Cormack
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Justin Cormack @ 2013-12-30 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:10:59PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:02:19PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:20:46PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> >> >> MIPS is the most confusing architecture, but as far as I can make out,
>> >> >> the definition of struct stat64 that Musl has is probably the right
>> >> >> one for mips n32 but wrong for mips o32 which should be
>> >> >>
>> >> >> struct stat {
>> >> >> unsigned long st_dev;
>> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad0[3];
>> >> >> unsigned long long st_ino;
>> >> >> mode_t st_mode;
>> >> >> nlink_t st_nlink;
>> >> >> uid_t st_uid;
>> >> >> gid_t st_gid;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_rdev;
>> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad1[3];
>> >> >> long long st_size;
>> >> >> time_t st_atime;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_atime_nsec;
>> >> >> time_t st_mtime;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_mtime_nsec;
>> >> >> time_t st_ctime;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_ctime_nsec;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_blksize;
>> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad2;
>> >> >> long long st_blocks;
>> >> >> };
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It does appear that the syscalls for the two ABIs differ in this...
>> >> >
>> >> > This structure is identical to the one in musl except that it has
>> >> > 32-bit dev_t plus padding in place of 64-bit dev_t, and the musl
>> >> > version has reserved space at the end. Can you check whether the dev_t
>> >> > issue is actually a problem (it might be, based on endianness, and if
>> >> > so I think it would require ugly fixups in userspace)?
>> >>
>> >> Ah no, my mistake, you are right, the padding seems correct and I was
>> >> getting confused as usual by dev_t. However the 64 bit dev_t is a
>> >> problem on bigendian mips.
>> >>
>> >> (Whats the reason for Musl using 64 bit dev_t? glibc compatibility?)
>> >
>> > And room for expansion, and consistency of the type between archs.
>> > There's no justification for dev_t or similar types to be
>> > arch-specific.
>>
>> But isnt the kernel dev_t 32 bit for all archs?
>
> Yes and no. They have adjacent padding reserved to make it up to
> 128-bit, despite the fact that intmax_t is 64-bit everywhere and thus
> 128-bit types can't really be used. I suspect on big-endian the
> padding is at the other side to allow for this already, but it might
> be misaligned with respect to the 64/128 bit size in musl at present.
Let me just double check on both endians. Maybe I made a mistake...
Justin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: stat64 on mips
2013-12-30 22:13 ` Rich Felker
2013-12-30 22:15 ` Justin Cormack
@ 2013-12-30 22:53 ` Justin Cormack
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Justin Cormack @ 2013-12-30 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:10:59PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:02:19PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:20:46PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>> >> >> MIPS is the most confusing architecture, but as far as I can make out,
>> >> >> the definition of struct stat64 that Musl has is probably the right
>> >> >> one for mips n32 but wrong for mips o32 which should be
>> >> >>
>> >> >> struct stat {
>> >> >> unsigned long st_dev;
>> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad0[3];
>> >> >> unsigned long long st_ino;
>> >> >> mode_t st_mode;
>> >> >> nlink_t st_nlink;
>> >> >> uid_t st_uid;
>> >> >> gid_t st_gid;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_rdev;
>> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad1[3];
>> >> >> long long st_size;
>> >> >> time_t st_atime;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_atime_nsec;
>> >> >> time_t st_mtime;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_mtime_nsec;
>> >> >> time_t st_ctime;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_ctime_nsec;
>> >> >> unsigned long st_blksize;
>> >> >> unsigned long __st_pad2;
>> >> >> long long st_blocks;
>> >> >> };
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It does appear that the syscalls for the two ABIs differ in this...
>> >> >
>> >> > This structure is identical to the one in musl except that it has
>> >> > 32-bit dev_t plus padding in place of 64-bit dev_t, and the musl
>> >> > version has reserved space at the end. Can you check whether the dev_t
>> >> > issue is actually a problem (it might be, based on endianness, and if
>> >> > so I think it would require ugly fixups in userspace)?
>> >>
>> >> Ah no, my mistake, you are right, the padding seems correct and I was
>> >> getting confused as usual by dev_t. However the 64 bit dev_t is a
>> >> problem on bigendian mips.
>> >>
>> >> (Whats the reason for Musl using 64 bit dev_t? glibc compatibility?)
>> >
>> > And room for expansion, and consistency of the type between archs.
>> > There's no justification for dev_t or similar types to be
>> > arch-specific.
>>
>> But isnt the kernel dev_t 32 bit for all archs?
>
> Yes and no. They have adjacent padding reserved to make it up to
> 128-bit, despite the fact that intmax_t is 64-bit everywhere and thus
> 128-bit types can't really be used. I suspect on big-endian the
> padding is at the other side to allow for this already, but it might
> be misaligned with respect to the 64/128 bit size in musl at present.
I am having toolchain trouble with my machine. Just ignore until I can
replicate after reinstalling with a more recent Linux than the one it
shipped with.
Justin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-12-30 22:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-12-30 18:20 stat64 on mips Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 21:29 ` Rich Felker
2013-12-30 22:02 ` Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 22:03 ` Rich Felker
2013-12-30 22:10 ` Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 22:13 ` Rich Felker
2013-12-30 22:15 ` Justin Cormack
2013-12-30 22:53 ` Justin Cormack
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public 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).