From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: luto@amacapital.net (Andy Lutomirski) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:15:56 -0800 Subject: [PATCHv3 00/24] ILP32 support in ARM64 In-Reply-To: References: <20141002155217.GH32147@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150210181302.GA23886@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150211190252.GB23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150211192558.GE23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150211194741.GI23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Message-ID: <54DBB87C.5060901@amacapital.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/11/2015 11:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Why? It's hardly an incompatible ABI change, as long as the >> kernel/libc fills the upper bits (for old programs that read them >> based on the old headers) when structs are read from the kernel to the >> application, and ignores the upper bits (potentially set or left >> uninitialized by the application) when strings are passed from >> userspace to the kernel. Newly built apps using the struct definition >> with 32-bit tv_nsec would need new libc to ensure that the high bits >> aren't interpreted, but this could be handled by symbol versioning. >> > > We have considered this option. But since kernel wouldn't change > tv_nsec/tv_usec handling just for x32, it wasn't selected. > Did anyone *ask* the kernel people (e.g. hpa)? --Andy