Re: [PATCHv3 00/24] ILP32 support in ARM64

Rich Felker
2015-02-11T19:03:26Z

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:33:32AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 at 16:52:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> > New version with all of the requested changes. Updated to the
> >> > latest sources.
> >> >
> >> > Notable changes from the previous versions:
> >> > VDSO code has been factored out to be easier to understand and
> >> > easier to maintain.
> >> > Move the config option to the last thing that gets added.
> >> > Added some extra COMPAT_* macros for core dumping for easier usage.
> >>
> >> Apart from a few comments I've made, I would also like to see non-empty
> >> commit logs and long line wrapping (both in commit logs and
> >> Documentation/). Otherwise, the patches look fine.
> >>
> >> So what are the next steps? Are the glibc folk ok with the ILP32 Linux
> >> ABI? On the kernel side, what I would like to see:
> >
> > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
> > I think we need to open a discussion of how it relates to open glibc
> > bug #16437, which presently applies only to x32 (ILP32 ABI on x86_64):
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16437
>
> Please leave x32 out of this discussion. I have resolved this bug
> as WONTFIX.

>From the glibc side, I thought things went by a consensus process
these days, not the old WONTFIX regime of he who shall not be named.
If this is not fixed for x32, then x32 cannot provide a conforming C
environment and thus it's rather a toy target. But I think we should
discuss this on libc-alpha. In the mean time please leave it REOPENED.

Rich