From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:50:56 -0700 Subject: ILP32 for ARM64: testing with glibc testsuite In-Reply-To: References: <1477081997-4770-1-git-send-email-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> <20161107082359.GA19666@yury-N73SV> <20161109095650.GA22804@yury-N73SV> Message-ID: <20161117155056.6xkldspks6dwoj7z@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 03:22:26PM +0400, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > Regarding ILP32 runtime, my opinion is that it is acceptable for ILP32 > to have extra failures compared to LP64, since these are not > regressions, but, rather, failures of a new configuration. I disagree with this. We definitely need to understand why they fail, otherwise we run the risk of potential glibc or kernel implementation bugs becoming ABI. -- Catalin