From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] Change time_t and clock_t to 64 bit Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 20:20:30 +0200 Message-ID: <9148888.HqBb0YIpx4@wuerfel> References: <1399971456-3941-1-git-send-email-lftan@altera.com> <5228220.XfC7baN05k@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:60803 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751072AbaESSUq (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2014 14:20:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Chung-Lin Tang , John Stultz , Geert Uytterhoeven , Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Gleixner , Ley Foon Tan , Linux-Arch , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , LeyFoon Tan On Monday 19 May 2014 18:12:18 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 19 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > A related question would be how you plan to support future CPU architectures > > that never had the 32-bit time_t in the kernel ABI. Would you also want > > to provide both 32 and 64 bit time_t to user space on those? > > I'd expect those just to have 64-bit time_t in userspace (like x32) - > choosing a different type for time_t from the start is a lot simpler than > setting up a second set of interfaces with associated symbol versioning > for an existing architecture. This whole discussion started with the > question of whether Nios II should be such an architecture.... Ok > (Other variants may arise as well, e.g. architectures with existing kernel > support that only get glibc support later.) Good point. Arnd