From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6990 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "H.J. Lu" Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.lib.musl.general,gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 00/24] ILP32 support in ARM64 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:34:23 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20141002155217.GH32147@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150210181302.GA23886@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150211190252.GB23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150211192558.GE23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423683272 19604 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2015 19:34:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:34:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Catalin Marinas , Andrew Pinski , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , LKML , Andrew Pinski , musl@lists.openwall.com, GNU C Library To: Rich Felker Original-X-From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 11 20:34:31 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: glk-linux-kernel-3@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YLd3O-0004n8-MD for glk-linux-kernel-3@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:34:31 +0100 Original-Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754171AbbBKTe0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:34:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]:50830 "EHLO mail-ob0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754014AbbBKTeY (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:34:24 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id wp18so5192163obc.8 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:34:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=p9Gsypl6nFAIAeyA/bQP4rgH05hQwnJ7Bs1Zn/sNLXI=; b=qyUOPcjuzFUwJvB9Jx0d86G3p4qz4ary3slXbe6a9rFYk1Xw62q8SjL8m/VvW8xuI5 M34yNeS1wz5WNtkgC6Of4dGc34RJkeiIdupFBvQCbqNW+/7hQy7bHm9cscfYk/eG9dEE jJw/FtpNqSkMdSOuMYOEW7tF85muDCHPwXLqCeEt7yfEjgqgi91hwwYzqg8XYTrArKHm JKYmAJzuuPA3Gqp8nZSJ/dpOrZHCIb32Y5yw59zSYzPA+31xOvHpYCT1NVsH5dtiiXsH MIwlTZV2IIuB341jPEDySq/St/XpCtAxQf1zOpVScNUYq5sa67VS7rLSP+RE/I7FGvo5 eNjg== X-Received: by 10.202.209.23 with SMTP id i23mr119139oig.108.1423683264026; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:34:24 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.134.102 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:34:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150211192558.GE23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Original-Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.kernel:1886706 gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel:392805 gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6990 gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha:49158 Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:16:58AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but >> >> > I think we need to open a discussion of how it relates to open glibc >> >> > bug #16437, which presently applies only to x32 (ILP32 ABI on x86_64): >> >> > >> >> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16437 >> >> >> >> Please leave x32 out of this discussion. I have resolved this bug >> >> as WONTFIX. >> > >> > From the glibc side, I thought things went by a consensus process >> > these days, not the old WONTFIX regime of he who shall not be named. >> > If this is not fixed for x32, then x32 cannot provide a conforming C >> > environment and thus it's rather a toy target. But I think we should >> > discuss this on libc-alpha. In the mean time please leave it REOPENED. >> >> As I said in PR, the issue has been raised in Mar, 2012 when the >> x32 port was submitted. It has been decided that x32 won't conform >> to tv_nsec, blksize_t, and suseconds_t as long. I don't believe we >> will change them to conform to POSIX. > > I briefly reviewed that discussion and I think the decision made was > about an obscure POSIX requirement about supporting at least one > compilation environment where certain types have rank <= long. This is The example you gave in PR is similar to https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg00456.html > trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate > compilation environments, but it's not related to the core issue: that > the definition of timespec violates core (not obscure) requirements of > both POSIX and C11. At the time you were probably unaware of the C11 > requirement. Note that it's a LOT harder to effect change in the C > standard, so even if the Austin Group would be amenable to changing > the requirement for timespec to allow something like nseconds_t, > getting WG14 to make this change to work around a Linux/glibc mistake > does not sound practical. That is very unfortunate. I consider it is too late for x32 to change. -- H.J.