From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4436 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Justin Cormack Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: stat64 on mips Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 22:10:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131230212953.GL24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20131230220339.GM24286@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 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1388441465 11503 80.91.229.3 (30 Dec 2013 22:11:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 22:11:05 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4440-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Dec 30 23:11:13 2013 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 1Vxl3I-0005Yw-7a for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:11:12 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 3653 invoked by uid 550); 30 Dec 2013 22:11:11 -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 3645 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2013 22:11:11 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=specialbusservice.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=nHNX+M0oROiIpgpLXmZHRS5cxOSS+PjX/wK26q6aB3E=; b=o+0UL9EZI9aY5Q+Lra8XsGdmE+VB4lXQ9VjWT/TdGz+GdeRUfrB1wrePl1ubB6ZRfe TEF7nOGuCvGRq8+zp61ZJLsjJveUfGC0kKav4GNzpijljecVtLeRn8EhFWBdTKBwTgwf 3Vv9LBimmoDPaeJcNHO9mjaKJydj4lExiOfkM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=nHNX+M0oROiIpgpLXmZHRS5cxOSS+PjX/wK26q6aB3E=; b=kxLXegvr4RUvOEFTikbp3YBEnPBPOkQ4bDEl76jFbGZLAkogj9R6eH1844qjU5cMeo eoHiNXk7V9InzJ0VdJZi3YeI/CzFZ80xc8V/xQyeZaZ2x4uSk53JICjhh5FEJO+DXpFy s10WefKhVvKlXjBUW/QJE7IgI1E10byA7RfJnLMdQfKwN/3ym6+UETbE1ByTVRei2O+e B9nsGWP9DcNUvhXPYpJeLIf4WD+b2Y0OIZ4HVmNWlRvDh8UB2RQ2BnfuJtrKWVoUROZY jA1/FJqD2zeZzAb/cgTZB3kiiU49LuawK5tJ6nXOTqsbjHFD8NHydGVj8xEcYPj12x9E KH8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlkeN6yWbr9wL/W5cpATT2VkT4G61Xp0EeHZzdr+ybh6ErRi+kOZe+TSOW+6LMlF/s+sXLd X-Received: by 10.68.111.33 with SMTP id if1mr71988096pbb.31.1388441459133; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:10:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131230220339.GM24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4436 Archived-At: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Rich Felker 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 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