From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
"libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"ltp@lists.linux.it" <ltp@lists.linux.it>,
"zack@owlfolio.org" <zack@owlfolio.org>,
"dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u,s}64 match {u,}int64_t in userspace
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:15:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YrHSaLombzbJwLhF@yuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a26ab9bfc27a430bb8a7b6aa2f39d724@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Hi!
> > This changes the __u64 and __s64 in userspace on 64bit platforms from
> > long long (unsigned) int to just long (unsigned) int in order to match
> > the uint64_t and int64_t size in userspace for C code.
> >
> > We cannot make the change for C++ since that would be non-backwards
> > compatible change and may cause possible regressions and even
> > compilation failures, e.g. overloaded function may no longer find a
> > correct match.
>
> Isn't is enough just to mention C++ name mangling?
I just picked up the argument that was brought up in the discussion
about the v1 patch and used it as a concrete example. Mangling is I
guess more straightforward example of a breakage. I can change the
description if there is consensus that such description would be better.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"zack@owlfolio.org" <zack@owlfolio.org>,
"ltp@lists.linux.it" <ltp@lists.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u, s}64 match {u, }int64_t in userspace
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:15:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YrHSaLombzbJwLhF@yuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a26ab9bfc27a430bb8a7b6aa2f39d724@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Hi!
> > This changes the __u64 and __s64 in userspace on 64bit platforms from
> > long long (unsigned) int to just long (unsigned) int in order to match
> > the uint64_t and int64_t size in userspace for C code.
> >
> > We cannot make the change for C++ since that would be non-backwards
> > compatible change and may cause possible regressions and even
> > compilation failures, e.g. overloaded function may no longer find a
> > correct match.
>
> Isn't is enough just to mention C++ name mangling?
I just picked up the argument that was brought up in the discussion
about the v1 patch and used it as a concrete example. Mangling is I
guess more straightforward example of a breakage. I can change the
description if there is consensus that such description would be better.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-21 14:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-21 12:03 [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u,s}64 match {u,}int64_t in userspace Cyril Hrubis
2022-06-21 12:03 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u, s}64 match {u, }int64_t " Cyril Hrubis
2022-06-21 13:01 ` [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u,s}64 match {u,}int64_t " Alejandro Colomar
2022-06-21 13:01 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u, s}64 match {u, }int64_t " Alejandro Colomar
2022-06-21 13:04 ` [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u,s}64 match {u,}int64_t " David Laight
2022-06-21 13:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u, s}64 match {u, }int64_t " David Laight
2022-06-21 14:15 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2022-06-21 14:15 ` Cyril Hrubis
2022-06-23 7:48 ` [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u,s}64 match {u,}int64_t " Arnd Bergmann
2022-06-23 7:48 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3] uapi: Make __{u, s}64 match {u, }int64_t " Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YrHSaLombzbJwLhF@yuki \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=zack@owlfolio.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.