public inbox for distributions@lists.linux.dev
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
To: Wookey <wookey@wookware.org>, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>,
	Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org, config-patches@gnu.org,
	distributions@lists.linux.dev, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org,
	glaubitz@debian.org, maskray@google.com,
	dickey@invisible-island.net, toolchain@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: Proposed CHOST change for the 64bit time_t transition
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 23:54:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2398337.iZASKD2KPV@noumea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <edbc4f0b-69bc-4c93-a46a-0e3cf2d82b3e@cs.ucla.edu>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1999 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 5. September 2024, 20:20:32 CEST schrieb Paul Eggert:
> On 2024-09-05 10:03, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > at least time64 implies largefile, so that will get sorted as side
> > effect.
> 
> Right, but this means the "t" in "t64" is somewhat misleading, as it's 
> not just about time: it also affects off_t, ino_t, etc., effects that 
> are in some cases more important than the time_t effects. It may well be 
> a good idea to use a different suffix, to remind non-experts about these 
> other issues. How about "wsi" for "wider system integers"? E.g., 
> i686-pc-linux-gnuwsi.

... or -gnutf64 (for time and files)?

No objections against such variations in principle, just we should keep it
as simple and straightforward as possible then.

> Is the plan to call these APIs XXXt64 or XXXwsi forever, even after the 
> year 2038? For example, will i686-pc-linux-gnu be withdrawn in a few years?

I'd expect that all the 32bit linux variants will slowly sink into obscurity.
(By 2038, we're probably more concerned with the 64bit to 128bit transition.)

Apart from that, I see no real need for further change later on.

> How would you deal with the problem that i686-pc-linux-gnu would mean 
> one thing in Gentoo and something else in Debian? (This was what I was 
> hinting at when I suggested adding a suffix for 32-bit time_t instead of 
> for 64-bit.)

Well, of course I would hope that I can still convince them that tacking on t64
makes sense. After all, it's easy for them now. ;) Otherwise...

Following the logic of riscv versus riscv64 versus riscv32, one could come up
with a "global" definition of
* t64 suffix = 64bit time and lfs
* no suffix = can be either, your fault for not being informative, distro default
* t32 suffix = 32bit time (and ...?)


-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, comrel, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2024-09-05 21:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-09-04 15:48 Proposed CHOST change for the 64bit time_t transition Andreas K. Huettel
2024-09-05  0:32 ` Oskari Pirhonen
2024-09-05  2:06 ` Wookey
2024-09-05  3:10   ` Khem Raj
2024-09-05 13:50     ` Andreas K. Huettel
2024-09-05 15:39       ` Paul Eggert
2024-09-05 16:33         ` Todd Vierling
2024-09-05 16:59           ` Andreas K. Huettel
2024-09-05 17:03         ` Andreas K. Huettel
2024-09-05 18:20           ` Paul Eggert
2024-09-05 21:54             ` Andreas K. Huettel [this message]
2024-09-06 16:06         ` Arsen Arsenović
2024-09-07  0:24           ` Bruno Haible
2024-09-07 11:52             ` Arsen Arsenović
2024-09-07  0:16         ` Bruno Haible
2024-09-08 14:08           ` Arsen Arsenović
2024-09-08 23:42             ` Jacob Bachmeyer
2024-09-09 23:08               ` Arsen Arsenović
2024-09-10 10:16                 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2024-09-10 14:11                   ` Todd Vierling
2024-09-10 16:23             ` Florian Weimer
2024-09-05 16:39       ` Khem Raj
2024-09-05 13:49   ` Andreas K. Huettel
2024-09-07 12:32   ` Michał Górny

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=2398337.iZASKD2KPV@noumea \
    --to=dilfridge@gentoo.org \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=config-patches@gnu.org \
    --cc=devel@lists.fedoraproject.org \
    --cc=dickey@invisible-island.net \
    --cc=distributions@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=eggert@cs.ucla.edu \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=glaubitz@debian.org \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=maskray@google.com \
    --cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \
    --cc=toolchain@gentoo.org \
    --cc=wookey@wookware.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox