[RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-19T08:23:35Z

On Friday 19 February 2016 01:35:06 Yury Norov wrote:
>
> Hi Bamvor, everybody,
>
> I have new glibc that follows new ABI:
> https://github.com/norov/glibc/tree/new-api

Ah, very good!

> It's very draft and dirty, but you can try it with RFC5.
> My fail list for ltplite looks like this:
> pipeio_4 FAIL 11
> abort01 FAIL 2
> clone02 FAIL 4
> kill10 FAIL 2
> kill11 FAIL 2
> lstat01A FAIL 1
> lstat02 FAIL 1
> mmap16 FAIL 6
> nanosleep03 FAIL 1
> nftw01 FAIL 1
> nftw6401 FAIL 1
> open12 FAIL 2
> pathconf01 FAIL 1
> pipe07 FAIL 2
> profil01 FAIL 11
> readdir01 FAIL 1
> readlink01A FAIL 1
> rename11 FAIL 2
> rmdir02 FAIL 2
> sigaltstack01 FAIL 1
> sigaltstack02 FAIL 1
> stat03 FAIL 1
> stat04 FAIL 1
> stat06 FAIL 1
> umount2_01 FAIL 2
> umount2_02 FAIL 2
> umount2_03 FAIL 2
> utime06 FAIL 2
> writev01 FAIL 1
> mtest06 FAIL 11
> rwtest01 FAIL 2
> rwtest02 FAIL 2
> rwtest03 FAIL 2
> rwtest04 FAIL 2
> rwtest05 FAIL 2

I have no idea whether this is good news or bad news ;-)

In https://github.com/norov/glibc/commit/351b8728fdb365bd4852ac113601ddf38153fdfc
I see that you are passing __IPC_64, I thought we had already resolved
that in the kernel. We might need to go back to this.

In https://github.com/norov/glibc/commit/5d4290435e428267171ece871539b76e1d079d11
you are defining a struct __kernel_stat64 in the glibc. Is this the expected
way to do it? I would have thought you'd get the definition from the kernel
headers.

Arnd